Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
DINESH PATHAK, J.
Chandrashekhar – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 978 of 2022
Decided on : 12-07-2022
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - Section 4-A, (1)(a), A(1), 6 (1), 44, 19A - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 - Rule 17 - Consolidation operation - Village illegally brought under consolidation operation - Grievance of petitioner is that village has illegally been brought under consolidation operation by issuing notification and Consolidation Commissioner has illegally rejected representation – Held, Petition has accepted carrying out of consolidation operation with a condition to avoid unnecessary shifting of chak which has appropriately been accepted by Consolidation Commissioner and, accordingly, issued direction to complete consolidation operation – Court is of considered view that no justifiable ground is made out to interfere in order under challenge - Counsel for petitioner has failed to substantiate his submission in assailing impugned order and issuance of notification under Section 4-A of U.P.C.H. Act - There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to how petitioner is prejudiced or is there any likelihood of causing miscarriage of justice to him due to order under challenge - There is no illegality, perversity and ambiguity in order under challenge which may warrant indulgence of this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India - Even otherwise there is no justification to review intent of legislation promulgated under Section 4-A of U.P.C.H. Act - Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Pathak, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 4.3.2022 (Annexure-8) passed by the Consolidation Commissioner (respondent No. 4), rejecting the representation dated 31.12.2021 moved by one Awadhesh Mishra, in pursuance of the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by this Court in Writ-B No. 1764 of 2021; Awadhesh Mishra v. State of U.P. and others (Annexure-7).
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that village Chandadih, Pargana Sikendarpur, Tehsil Belthara Road, District Ballia has illegally been brought under the consolidation operation by issuing notification under Section 4-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act') promulgated on 27.5.2016 and the Consolidation Commissioner has illegally rejected the representation without adverting to the grievance raised before him.
4. Facts culled out from the averments made in the writ petition are that some of the villagers have shown their dissatisfaction against the issuance of notification under Section 4-A of the U.P.C.H. Act, inter alia, on the grounds that previously, consolidation operation had already been finalized in the year 1971 and there was no occasion to carry out second round consolidation operation. Feeling aggrieved against the said notification under Section 4-A of the U.P.C.H. Act, one Awadhesh Mishra had filed writ petition before this Court challenging the said notification being Writ-B No. 1764 of 2021 (Awdhesh Mishra v. State of U.P. and others). While deciding the said writ petition, this Court has observed that there was a sharp division of opinion amongst the villagers qua carrying out second round consolidation operation. Some of the villagers are in favour of carrying out consolidation operation and some are in favour of cancellation of the notification, consequently, this Court, vide order dated 18.11.2021, has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Consolidation Commissioner to decide the representation of the petitioner, which is quoted herein below :
2. Supplementary-affidavit and instructions are taken on record.
3. Sri Girish Chandra Maurya, Advocate has filed impleadment application for impleadment of applicants as respondents as they are necessary party to the case. The impleadment application is not objected by learned counsel for the petitioner, same is accordingly allowed and learned counsel for the applicants is directed to incorporate necessary impleadment during course of the day.
4. In the present writ petition, notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued on 30.9.2021, but it seems that the petitioner is aggrieved by the said proceedings inasmuch as according to him majority of villagers are not in favour of such proceedings as according to him no fruitful purpose would be served by the same.
5. On the other hand an application for impleadment has been moved claiming to be representing majority of villagers, who, according to him are in favour of the consolidation proceedings. He further submits that a report has been submitted by the Consolidation Committee to the authorities concerned in favour of the consolidation proceedings.
6. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether consolidation proceedings should proceed or not. In the present circumstances, as there are clearly two versions available contradicting each other and consequently it would be appropriate that the issue need be suitable considered by the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. at Lucknow.
7. Accordingly, in the light of above, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present writ petition is disposed of with direction that the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. a
The court upheld the Consolidation Commissioner's order, affirming that the provisions of Rule 17 of the U.P. C.H. Rules are guidelines, not mandatory, allowing for subjective discretion in consolida....
The provisions of Rule 17 of the U.P. C.H. Act are not mandatory, and the notification under Sections 4 and 6 are conditional legislation, requiring subjective satisfaction of the authority. Proper c....
The right of appeal is a vested right which accrues to the litigant from the date the proceedings commenced and continues till the proceedings are finally decided. The deeming clause in Section 52(2)....
The timing and implications of the publication of notification under Section 5(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, and the jurisdiction of Co....
Objections to consolidation proceedings must be filed within statutory timelines; orders made by consolidation authorities are upheld unless shown to be illegal or lacking jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot adjudicate title disputes, which are reserved for Civil Courts.
The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, post-notification under Section 52(1) is ambiguous and requires clarification by a larger bench.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation's remand for a fresh hearing was justified to ensure fairness, given the significant delay and procedural irregularities in prior decisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
