SC: Orders given by the High Court must be in consonance with the grounds of equity otherwise they are liable to be set aside

The Apex Court on 09.01.2019, in HANSRAJ v MEWALAL AND ORS[1], allowed the appeal  that was directed against the judgment delivered by High Court of Allahabad which had set aside the Settlement Officer Consolidation’s and Deputy Director of Consolidation’s orders while permitting  the petition that was filed by the respondents   .

FACTS:

 The Bhumidhars of a  Plot  of  Village were the appellant and his brother .A share belonging to the  brother was sold by the  brother  himself in favor of the respondent by a sale deed . After the issuing of notification, the concerned village was brought the operation of the Consolidation under the    U.P.   Consolidation   of   Holdings   Act,   1953 , wherein a provisional Consolidation  Scheme was prepared by the The Assistant Consolidation   Officer   that proposed  chaks to  both the appellant and respondents   upon    the Plot   of which the   real tenure holder   was the appellant whereas the  co-­tenure  holders were the respondents  through the deed of sale .

 A pitch road had been constructed six years prior to the beginning of the operation connected to the Consolidation  in the northern part of the Plot. Chaks were proposed by the    Assistant   Consolidation Officer   to both the   appellant   as well as the respondents towards the northern side of the Plot resulting in the filing of an objection by the Respondents where the respondents contended that the chaks should be proposed as per the possession of the parties resulting in the allotting of the chaks towards the northern side to the respondents and the south side was allotted to the appellants.

Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Settlement   Officer Consolidation where the appellant was noted as the original tenure holder while the respondents were the joint holders due to the sale deed as concluded by the  Settlement Officer Consolidation.

Meanwhile, a house was being constructed by the respondent on the northern east part if the Plot  with permission taken from the   Settlement Officer Consolidation which eventually had to stop due to the objection raised by the appellant.  Subsequently, it was held by the  Settlement Officer Consolidation that the chak must be given to all who are joint holders to pitch road.

An appeal was made before the High Court wherein the appeal was allowed. A revision was also filed against the order of the Settlement   Officer Consolidation.However, the order of the  Settlement Officer   Consolidation was affirmed by  The   Deputy   Director, Consolidation leading to the filing of a    writ   petition   by the  respondents which was thus allowed by the learned Single Judge.

DECISION HELD BY THE APEX COURT:

 When the matter was brought before the Supreme Court of India, the Apex Court while setting aside the High Court’s order and judgment and allowing the appeal and dismissing the petition of the respondents, concluded that the High Court’s order was unsustainable and  that the High Court had made an error when it had allowed the writ petition by which it had restored the Consolidation Officer’s order  .