The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rescission of notifications under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must satisfy the conditions under Rule 17, and the Director of Consolidation is not required to provide a reasoned order for rescission under Section 6.

S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this petition is focused on the order dated 2. 9. 2005, whereby Director, consolidation, U. P. rescinded the Notifications dated 1. 8. 1986 and 8. 9. 1991 having been issued under Section 4 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for commencement of the consolidation of the area relating to two villages namely, village Jakhangaon Tahsll Mathura and village Fodar Tahsil Mathura.

( 2 ) THE petition was called on 11. 5. 2006 and the same day, by an order of the Court dated 11. 5. 2006, learned standing counsel was directed to seek instructions from respondents forthwith and the case was listed for 16. 5. 2006. No counter-affidavit was filed on 16. 5. 2006 on behalf of director of Consolidation and instead, the learned standing counsel furnished all the requisite information by producing entire material as received from the office of Director of Consolidation and the same was ordered to be placed on record,

( 3 ) A brief resume of necessary facts filtering out unnecessary details, as collected from the papers furnished by the learned standing counsel before the Court, is that vlllage Jakhangaon situated within the circle of Tahsil Mathura was notified under Section 4 (1) (a) on 26. 10. 1991, while village Fodar falling within the circle of Tahsil Mathura was notified for commencement of consolidation proceeding on 23. 8. 1986. Thereafter records were published under Section 8 of the Act on 31st October, 1994, followed by final records prepared and published on 12th october 1995. It would further transpire from the record that chak allotment proceedings were embarked upon followed by publication of record on 26. 2. 1996 and thereafter, provisional scheme of chak allotment proceedings came to be confirmed on 1. 9. 1996. In so far as village fodar is concerned, notification under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act was issued on 23. 8. 1986 and final records were published on 24. 10. 1989 and thereafter chak allotment proceedings were confirmed and published on 20. 5. 1995. From a further scrutiny of the record, it would appear that a resolution was passed in the matter by the Land Management Committee containing signatures of certain villagers whereby further consolidation proceedings were sought to be rescinded. It would further appear from the record that consolidator and consolidation Lekhpal submitted a report and on the basis of that report, the District Magistrate/district Deputy director of Consolidation transmitted a report to the Director of Consolidation the text of which is that on account of objection to continuance of consolidation proceeding by the village people, the authorities were not getting cooperation for carrying out further consolidation operation in the village and as a result, the further consolidation proceedings were stymied. Likewise, in the matter of village Jakhangaon, similar view was articulated and ultimately all the papers were transmitted to the Director of Consolidation alongwith proposal for cancellation of consolidation proceeding in relation to the two villages. In the ultimate analysis, order dated 2. 9. 2005 was passed by Director of Consolidation whereby notifications issued under Section 4 (2) (a) of the act relating to the two villages aforesaid were rescinded.

( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also been taken through the record.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that after the notifications under Section 4 (1) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act published on 26. 10. 1991, publication of record was undertaken under Section 9 of the Act and thereafter final records were published under Section 10 of the Act in the year 1995 followed by chak allotment proceeding which were published and subsequently the matter attained finality under Section 23 of the Act in the year 1996 and only action that remained to be taken up, was to hand over possession to respective tenure

Click Here to Read the rest of this document