Locus standi and statutory consolidation law: protected property interest and compensation requirements barred invalid lesser-value allotment.

A petitioner under Article 226 must show a subsisting personal right and its infringement; here, quasi-permanent allottees of evacuee property retained a legally protectable interest, later enlarged by a sanad into an absolute property right, so locus standi was established. The consolidation statute required equality of value in substituted holdings or compensation for lesser-value allotments, and State Government instructions could not override that statutory duty. Directions authorising allotment of inferior land without compensation were inconsistent with the Act, so the consolidation scheme was invalid and the High Court's setting aside of it was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondents had sufficient legal interest to maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the allotted evacuee property; (ii) whether the consolidation scheme, framed on the basis of State Government instructions and resulting in allotment of land of lesser value without compensation, was valid.

Issue (i): whether the respondents had sufficient legal interest to maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the allotted evacuee property.

Analysis: A petitioner under Article 226 must show a subsisting personal right and its infringement. The respondents were quasi-permanent allottees under the evacuee property regime, their allotment had not been cancelled, and the statutory scheme preserved their possession and interest even after acquisition notification under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The subsequent sanad further enlarged their interest into an absolute property right before disposal of the writ petition. Their interest was therefore a valuable and legally protectable one.

Conclusion: The respondents had sufficient locus standi to maintain the writ petition.

Issue (ii): whether the consolidation scheme, framed on the basis of State Government instructions and resulting in allotment of land of lesser value without compensation, was valid.

Analysis: The consolidation statute required a scheme to preserve equality of value or to provide compensation where a holding of lesser market value was substituted. The Act did not empower the State Government to issue binding directions overriding the statutory duty of the Consolidation Officer or to deprive an owner of property without compensation. The impugned instructions were inconsistent with the Act and could not justify allotment of inferior land without compensation.

Conclusion: The consolidation scheme based on the State Government instructions was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the consolidation scheme succeeded, and the order of the High Court setting aside the scheme was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A person with a subsisting quasi-permanent or accrued property interest may invoke Article 226, and administrative instructions cannot override a statutory consolidation scheme or authorise deprivation of property without the compensation required by the statute.

---