IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DINESH PATHAK, J.
Praveen Yadav - Petitioner
Versus
State Of UP And Others - Respondents
WRIT B. No. 1693 of 2024
Decided On : 01-08-2024
JUDGMENT :
(Dinesh Pathak, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State respondents no.1 to 4.
2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 22.7.2024 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner (respondent no.2) whereby representation moved on his behalf beseeching issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'UPCH Act') to cancel the consolidation operation has been rejected.
3. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and perusal of record, it is manifested that the village in question i.e. Gram Bhandri, Tehsil Sirsaganj, District Firozabad, is second time notified for Consolidation operation in the year 2009 and the consolidation operation is still going on in the village. The previous consolidation operation was completed in the year 1964. It is case of the petitioner that most of the villagers are in favour of cancelling the consolidation operation, therefore, a representation was moved before the authorities concern to cancel the notification under Section 4 A (2) of the UPCH Act by virtue of promulgation of a notification under Section 6(1) of UPCH Act. Having found delay in deciding the said representation, the petitioner has approached before this Hon'ble Court by filing Writ B No.2564 of 2019, beseeching a direction commanding the consolidation authorities to issue a notification under Section 6(1) of UPCH Act. A Coordinate Bench of this court, vide order dated 26.11.2019, has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction that the representation dated 30.9.2019 pending before the Consolidation Commissioner shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. In pursuance of the order dated 26.11.2019, the petitioner has approached before the learned Consolidation Commissioner and submitted a representation alongwith a certified copy of the order dated 26.11.2019, which was received in the office of the Consolidation Commissioner on 10.12.2019. Having been received the order passed by this court, the learned Consolidation Commissioner has issued a direction to the authorities concerned to submit report qua grievance of the petitioner as mentioned in the representation dated 30.9.2019. The District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation has submitted his report dated 12.2.2020 alongwith the report dated 7.2.2020 submitted by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In his representation dated 30.9.2019, the petitioner came with the plea that majority of villagers are satisfied with the previous consolidation operation which was finalised in the year 1964 and all facilities viz. drainage lane, chak road, pasture land, school, hospital and abadi site are available, therefore, a second round consolidation operation is not required. It is further averred in the application that the consolidation authorities are unnecessarily harassing the villagers by disturbing the valuation and area of plots which is causing harassment and oppression to the villagers. There are groupism in the village pertaining to carrying out the consolidation operation and there are sufficient grounds available for the cancellation of the consolidation operation as enunciated under Rule 17 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Rules. It has also been emphasised in the representation that more than 70% of the villagers are in favour of cancelling the consolidation operation.
4. In his report dated 12.2.2020, the District Magistrate has unequivocally mentioned that the notification under Section 20 of the UPCH Act has been promulgated on 8.2.2019 after fulfilling all the formalities as required for the chak allotment proceedings. The consolidation operation is going on as per th
Notifications under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are legislative functions, not subject to judicial review unless ultra vires.
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 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....
The court established that cancellation of earlier consolidation proceedings under the U.P.C.H. Act allows for new proceedings and does not accord finality to prior adjudications between the parties.
The court affirmed that consolidation procedures can be reopened under Section 4-A(1) of the Act, even after prior finality, if justified in public interest.
The Director of Consolidation lacks jurisdiction to alter finalized consolidation schemes under the Consolidation Act, which can only be revoked by the State Government.
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.
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.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.