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.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

Rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioners is taken on record. Misc. Application (IA No.3 of 2026) stands disposed of.

2. On consent of both the parties, the matter is being finally heard on merits.

3. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged the impugned notification dated 19.05.2022 (Annexure No.3) issued by respondent No.2 with regard to the entire consolidation proceedings for entire village Mirzapur Mustafabad, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar.

4. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners are permanent residents of village Mirjapur Mustafabad, Ahatmal Haridwar, District Haridwar, having agricultural lands and residential house in the said village. It is submitted that consolidation proceedings in the village were earlier undertaken in the year 2000–01 and stood concluded, culminating in issuance of notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’), on 23.06.2010. According to petitioners, during the earlier consolidation proceedings, land recorded as ‘Nadi’ (river land) could not be included. It is further submitted that in an open meeting of the Gram Sabha held on 02.10.2019, a proposal was unanimously passed to undertake consolidation proceedings only in respect of such left-out land recorded as ‘Nadi’. However, instead of restricting the exercise to said land, respondents-State issued the impugned notification dated 19.05.2022 directing consolidation proceedings for the entire village, which, according to the petitioners, is arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to law. Thus, petitioners are before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once consolidation proceedings had attained finality under Section 52 of the Act, reopening of the same for the entire village is impermissible. It is contended that the impugned notification is in violation of Section 4 -A(1) of the Act, particularly the proviso thereto, which restricts issuance of fresh notification within twenty years of the earlier notification. He further submits that no special circumstances or public interest has been recorded to justify such exercise of power within the restricted period.

6. It is further argued by learned counsel for petitioner that the Gram Sabha resolution was limited only to ‘Nadi’ land and the respondents-State have acted beyond the scope of such proposal. Additionally, it is contended that no proper survey, inspection or consultation with tenure holders was undertaken prior to issuance of the impugned notification, thereby rendering the same arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

7. Learned State Counsel has supported the impugned action and submitted that the notification has been issued in exercise of statutory powers under Section 4 -A(1) of the Act.

8. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents- State. It is contended in counter affidavit that the State Government is empowered to reintroduce consolidation proceedings in public interest, even after earlier proceedings have been concluded. It is further submitted that the land recorded as ‘Nadi’, which was left out in earlier proceedings, has a bearing on the overall consolidation scheme of the village, and effective consolidation cannot be carried out in a piecemeal manner. According to the respondents-State, decision to undertake consolidation for the entire village is based on administrative considerations and policy, keeping in view the interest of the villagers at large. It is also submitted that Gram Sabha resolution is merely recommendatory in nature and does not bind the State to restrict c