In Brief
This case concerns the allotment of consolidated holdings (chaks) under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The appellant and respondents were co-sharers of an agricultural plot bordering a pitch road. The Consolidation Officer initially denied the appellant a chak on the road, but the Settlement Officer revised this to give all co-sharers road access. The High Court overturned this, but the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that unpartitioned co-owned holdings cannot be allocated based on possession alone. All co-sharers have equal rights to benefit from valuable features like road access, and the Settlement Officer's equitable distribution was valid and properly made after spot inspection.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.