By the Court.—The appellants are in appeal against a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27 April 2015. The appellants claim to be tenure holders of Village Hanspur, Gutaiyaj Natthapur, Tehsil Puwaya, District Shahjahanpur. The village was placed under consolidation and a notification was issued under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (the Act) on 5 August 1972. The first, second and third respondents, who are the original petitioners, moved an application before the Consolidation Officer, Shahjahanpur in 2011-12 nearly forty years after the commencement of consolidation proceedings in 1972 and nearly thirty two years after the framing of a preliminary consolidation scheme in 1980. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 28 July 2012 rejected the application. Appeals were filed against the order of the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by an order dated 12 November 2012 remanded the proceedings back to the Consolidation Officer for disposal afresh. On 9 July 2013, a notification was issued by the Consolidation Commissioner under Section 6(1) of the Act cancelling the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The first, second and third respondents filed a writ petition seeking to challenge the legality of the notification dated 9 July 2013 and also seeking a mandamus to the consolidation authorities to conclude the consolidation proceedings expeditiously. The appellants, who are tenure holders, were not parties to the proceedings. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge by a judgment and order dated 27 April 2015 in the following terms:

“The writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification dated 9.7.2013 by which consolidation operation has been closed in village Hanspur, Gutaiyaj Natthapur, tehsil Puwaya, District Shahjahanpur. Impugned notification does not contain any reason as such the counter-affidavit has been called for. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that in spite of efforts made by the consolidation authority they could not be able to demarcate the chak as well as deliver possession, although more than 40 years have passed, as such the notification under Section 6 was issued.

The reason given in the counter-affidavit shows that there was dereliction in discharge of statutory duties. If consolidation authorities could not demarcate the Chaks and deliver possession over it, then it cannot be a ground for quashing the consolidation proceeding.

In the result, the writ petition is succeeded and is allowed. The notification dated 9.7.2013 issued by Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. is quashed.

District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur is directed to ensure the demarcation of the chaks and delivery of possession by deputing necessary police force in the villages upto June, 2015.”

2. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants is that it is a well-settled principle of law that an order passed under Section 6(1) of the Act cancelling a notification under Section 4 of the Act does not affect the rights of any individual and has no civil consequences, since before persons enter into possession of the holdings allotted to them, they do not acquire any right, title or interest nor do they lose any of the rights, title or interest in their original holdings. Hence, it has been held by the Supreme Court that such an order is not even required to be preceded by an opportunity of being heard. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harbhajan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2011 AIR SCW 195, where similar provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 were considered. A similar view was taken in an earlier decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. State of U.P., 1976 RD 35.

3. On the other hand, it was sought to be urged on behalf of the first, second and third