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 consideration of all aspects is necessary before cancelling consolidation operations.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ram Autar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the state-respondent.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.8.2022, passed by the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow/respondent no.2.

3. Brief facts of the case are that notification under Section 4 of the U.P. C.H. Act has been issued in respect to village Tadaraipur, Pargana Saurikh, Tehsil Chhibramau, District Kannauj which has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ B No.788/2022 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 5.5.2022, directing the respondent no.2/Consolidation Commissioner to decide the representation of the petitioner, within a period of 3 weeks, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 5.5.2022, the Consolidation Commissioner considered the matter and vide order dated 31.8.2022, rejected the representation vide a detailed order, holding that no ground exist for issuing notification under Section 6 of the U.P. C.H. Act. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the order of this Court by which the earlier petition was disposed of, direction was issued to decide the petitioner's representation after affording proper opportunity of hearing but no opportunity of hearing has been accorded and the impugned order has been passed. He further placed reliance upon Rule 17 (b) & (c) of the U.P. C.H. Rules and on the basis of the provisions contained under Rule 17(b) & (c) of the U.P. C.H. Rules, counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no necessity for putting the village under consolidation, as such, the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner is wholly illegal. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that most of the villagers are not interested in the consolidation operation in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4 of the U.P. C.H. Act but respondent no.2 has not considered the same and arbitrarily rejected the representation filed by the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the Consolidation Commissioner has considered each and every aspect of the case as well as the provisions of the U.P. C.H. Act and Rule 17 and considering the every grievance set up in the representation and replying the same in the impugned order, has rejected the application holding that the consolidation operation is the only remedy by which the grievance of the villagers can be redressed. He further submitted that no interference is required against the impugned order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that the village in question was brought under consolidation operation by way of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. C.H. Act. There is also no dispute about the fact that the representation filed by the petitioner, has been rejected holding that consolidation operation cannot be cancelled as claimed by the petitioner in his representation.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy, the provisions contained in rule 17 of the U.P. C.H. Rules will be relevant which is quoted hereunder:-

17. Section 6. -The [notification] made under Section 4 of the Act, may among other reasons, be cancelled in respect of whole or any part of the area on one or more of the following grounds, viz., that -

(a) the area is under a development scheme of such a nature as when completed would render the consolidation operations inequitable to a section of the peasantry;

(b) the holdings of the village are already consolidated for one reason or the other and the tenure-h