HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. 5 CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 21350 OF 2010 Chaman Lal @ Chunni Lal and others. Vs. Sate of U.P. and others. Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.
This petition prays for a mandamus directing the respondents-consolidation authorities not to proceed with the consolidation operations in the village in question.
The aforesaid prayer is founded on the allegation that the consolidation operations would be against the interest of the tenure holders as 80% area of the village is covered by stones and hills which would make the consolidation operations practically impossible. The area is also full of drainage and riverbeds and a single crop is available to the farmers, therefore, a desire was expressed for not proceeding with the consolidation operations.
The village was brought under the consolidation operations under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The notification was issued on 20.08.2009.
Once such a notification was issued the consolidation operations have to be set into motion. The power to denotify or cancel a notification vests in the State Government under Section 6 of the U.P. Consolidation and Land Holdings Act. The same is quoted hereinbelow:
6. Cancellation of notification under Section 4. (1) It shall be lawful for the State Government at any time to cancel the [notification] made under Section 4 in respect of the whole or any part of the area specified therein.
[(2) Where a [notification] has been cancelled in respect of any unit under sub-section (1), such area shall, subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, cease to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation.] For exercise of of the said power certain guidelines have been given under the Rules and Rule 17 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 is extracted hereinunder:
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-holders are generally satisfied with the present position;
(c) the village is so torn up by party factions as to render proper consolidation proceedings in the village very difficult; and
(d) that a co-operative society has been formed for carrying out cultivation in the area after pooling all the land of the area for this purpose.
The aforesaid provisions, therefore, clearly empower the State Government to cancel a notification in case any such contingency exists as indicated above. It may be mentioned that the guidelines contained in Rule 17 are not exhaustive. The State Government can in its discretion proceed to cancel a notification.
The issue as to whether courts can enter into any such dispute was considered in the case of Sazid and others Vs. Commissioner of Consolidation and others reported in 1999 (4) AWC 2788 and it was held that courts should not take over the task of examining the validity of a notification issued under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
However, when orders are passed under Section 6 a judicial review may be permissible to a limited extent if the action taken is arbitrary or is against the interest of public at large in view of the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953.
In the instant case the petitioners contend that they have approached the State Government and, therefore, this writ petition be entertained.
Unfortunately, in the opinion of the Court, this petition amounts to a premature exercise and is otherwise an abuse of the process of court as an interim order has been passed staying the proceedings of consolidation operations until further orders of this Court without allowing the State Government to apply its mind. The stay of a notification under Section 4 amounts to staying the operation of law which in my opinion is not permissible. The State Government should be allowed to exercise his discretion before any interference is caused in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this court does not find any good reason to continue the interim order dated 20.04.2010 or to set aside the impugned notification dated 20.08.2009 issued under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953.
In view of this, the interim order dated 20.04.2010 is vacated the writ petition is dismissed.
It shall be open to the petitioners to approach the State Government for the redressal of their grievances in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
Dt. 07.03.2011 Akv