In Brief
A temple (appellant) was allotted consolidated land under the U.P. Consolidation Act. A third party's appeal by Bansi Ballabh led to a Settlement Officer order that re-allotted land adversely affecting the appellant, though the appellant was not a party to that appeal. The appellant later challenged this order before the Deputy Director, whose favour was reversed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had the right to challenge the subsequent order because it virtually nullified the original consolidation scheme and caused fresh prejudice to his access to the road, giving him a fresh cause of action, despite accepting the original reserve of bachat land for the village."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.