Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3308
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Raja Ram Ojha & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Consolidation Commissioner U.P.Lucknow and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 535(Conso) of 2013 (Connected with W.P. (Conso) Nos. 94 & 86 of 2014, 689/2012, 605/2013, 242/2006, 4443/1990, 337/2013, 241/2013, 4444/1990, 485/2013, 497/2013, 347/2013, 672/2013, 540/2004, 546/2013, 699/2013, 684/2012, 64/2013 & 736/2013)
Decided On : 31-03-2014
For the Petitioner: Anu Pratap Singh, R.N.Tewari, J.K.Sinha, M.A. Siddiqui, M.A. Siddiqui, Arvind Kumar Jauhari, M.Afzal, R.C.Tewari, Indrajeet Shukla, M.Afzal,Abdul Jabbar, Indrajeet Shukla, Abhishek Dhaon,Sidharth Dhaon, Alok Srivastava-Ii,Ram Kumar, Anurag Shukla, Tripathi B.G. Balak, Jai Singh Chauhan, S.S.Shukla & Sikandar Z.Khan.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.,Mohd.Aslam Khan,R.N. Gupta,Siraj Ahmad Khan
Notifications under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 are conditional legislation and can only be challenged on specific legal grounds such as being ultra vires, lack of competence, or unreasonableness.
Headnote:
Consolidation Operations - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 - Section 6(1), Section 4(2), Rule 17 - 6, 17 - The judgment discusses the challenge to notifications issued under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, and the interpretation of the Act and relevant rules. The court considered the arguments related to the cancellation of consolidation operations, the grounds for cancellation, and the requirement of reasons for cancellation. It also analyzed the impact of previous judgments on similar issues and the scope of judicial review in such matters.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions challenged notifications issued under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, which cancelled consolidation operations in various villages. The petitioners argued that the consolidation operations were nearing completion or had already been completed, and the notifications were issued without assigning reasons for cancellation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notifications under Section 6(1) were conditional legislation and not policy decisions. It held that the notifications could only be challenged on grounds of being ultra vires, lack of competence, or unreasonableness, none of which were pleaded or urged before the court. The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that they were devoid of merits.
Issues: The primary issues included the legality of cancelling consolidation operations, the requirement of reasons for cancellation, and the impact of previous judgments on similar matters. The court also addressed the factual controversies raised by the petitioners and the scope of judicial review in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that notifications under Section 6(1) were conditional legislation and could only be challenged on specific legal grounds. It emphasized that disputed questions of fact could not be decided by the writ court and that the authority's subjective satisfaction was required before cancelling consolidation operations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no justification for quashing the impugned notifications, which were deemed to be conditional legislation and not policy decisions.
Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.: -
This bunch of writ petitions have been filed challenging various notifications issued in exercise of powers conferred upon the State by Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, (for short, Act) which have been delegated by the Government Order No. 8313/IA-813/1954 dated 19.10.1956 upon the Director of Consolidation, cancelling the notifications issued under Section 4 (2) of the Act whereby various villages were brought under consolidation operations. All the petitions in this bunch challenge similar notifications which have been issued regarding various villages which had earlier been brought under the consolidation operations.
2. I have heard Shri Anu Pratap Singh, Shri Anurag Shukla, Shri Tripathi B.G. Balak Prasad, Shri Jai Singh Chauhan and Shri Shikandar Jath, who appear for the petitioners in various petitions in this bunch. I have also heard Shri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondents.
3. The following points have been argued by various learned counsels for the petitioners:
1. The Consolidation operations have been going on for a substantial period of time and the same were nearing completion or have already completed with possession having been delivered over the chaks carved out.
2. Once the stage of issuance of notification under Section 24 of the C.H. Act is reached, the consolidation operations cannot be cancelled and, therefore, the notification under Section 6(1), which have been issued subsequent to the notification under Sections 24, are liable to be quashed.
3. All the notifications have been issued on an approved proforma and they do not assign any reasons why the consolidation operations are being cancelled.
4. There are hundreds of the tenure-holders (chak-holders) in each unit but the notifications cancelling the consolidation operations have been issued, citing interim orders granted by this Court in one or two cases, which are said to have held up the consolidation operations for a substantial period of time. This reason has been disclosed either in the counter affidavits that have been filed or this information has been provided to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act.
5. In Writ Petition No. 64 of 2013, the additional submission made is that only 35 percent of land in the unit is fit for agriculture and that the notification has been issued at the instance of powerful political persons and is not an independent exercise of the authority concerned.
6. In Writ Petition No. 684 of 2012, it has been submitted that the unit in question has never been under consolidation operations earlier: the notification assigns no reason for cancelling the consolidation operations and, lastly, that none of the grounds, which have been specified in the sub Rules of Rule 17, where under the consolidation operations can be cancelled, have been spelled out.
4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Vinay Bhushan has supported the notifications impugned on the ground that notifications which either bring a unit under consolidation operations or which cancel the consolidation operations have been held to be a conditional legislation by a Division Bench in the case of Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limited vs. State of U.P., reported in 1976 RD, page 35. The same Division Bench has also held that no reasons need to be assigned for issuing such a notification and thus this Court cannot quash such notifications which are conditional legislation because any direction issued by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would amount to issuing directions to the State Government to legislate in a particular manner which is not permissible under law. He has lastly submitted that the conditions specified in the various sub-rules of Rule 17 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules are only indicative or inclusive and are not exhaustive.
5. Several judgments have been relie
