Allahabad High Court
Gram Pradhan Gram Panchayat Akbelpur vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 22 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60751
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3150 of 2023
Petitioner :- Gram Pradhan Gram Panchayat Akbelpur
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2023 along with Restoration Application No.3 of 2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant applications have been filed to recall the order dated 31.10.2023 along with the prayer for condonation of delay.
3. The condition imposed under the order dated 31.10.2023 has been complied with by depositing 1,000/- in the account of Bar Association Allahabad.
4. Explanation given for the delay in filing the restoration application is sufficient.
5. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned.
6. Cause shown for non-appearance on the date fixed is sufficient.
7. The order dated 31.10.2023 is hereby recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number.
8. The applications are accordingly, allowed
Order On Writ Petition
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the village- Akbelpur, Pargana- Kariyat Mittu, Tahsil- Sadar, District- Azamgarh was notified under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") and village is still under consolidation operation. Villagers filed applications/ representations before the authorities regarding the irregularities alleged to be committed by consolidation authorities but no proper consideration has been made. Hence this writ petition on behalf of Gram Pradhan with private counsel for the following reliefs:
"to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the consolidation authorities to cancel the consolidation operation already notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act, under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act in the interest of public at large to stopped the consolidation operation in view and in pursuance of resolution dated 26.10.2016 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and it is further prayed that the resolution dated 26.10.2016 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation be implemented on the spots subject to stopped the consolidation operation in public interest of the community at large of all tenure holders of Gram Panchayat Akbarpur, by passing appropriate order in writing under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act within stipulated period of one month or as fixed by this Hon'ble Court"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the majority of the villagers are not interested for consolidation operation in the village in question, as such, the village in question should be notified under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that the consolidation authorities are not proceeding according to the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act, as such, the notification issued under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act should be quashed. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (101) RD 226, Suraj Bhan vs. Director, Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh in order to demonstrate that if the consolidation authorities are not proceeding in proper manner then the authorities should consider the grievance of the tenure holder of the village in the light of the provisions contained under Rule 17 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Rules").
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the village in question was notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act long back but due to act of the petitioner and certain other persons, the consolidation operation could not proceed in proper manner in the village in question. He further submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained in view of the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act. He further submitted that the writ petition on behalf of gram pradhan through private counsel without any resolution for engaging the private counsel cannot be entertained.
5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that the village in question was notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act.
7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Rule 17 of U.P.C.H. Rules will be relevant, which is as under:
"Rule 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."
8. This Court in the case reported in 2016 (131) RD 478, Jasmit Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others has held that the Rule 17 of U.P.C.H. Rules is not mandatory.
9. This Court in the case reported in 2015 (128) RD 666 Dalip Singh and Others Vs. Vikram Singh and Others has held that notification issued under Sections 4 (1) & 6 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act are legislative in nature.
10. Considering the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench as well as Single Bench of this Court on the scope of Rule 17 of U.P.C.H. Rules as well as the scope of writ petition against the notification issued under Section 4 & 6 of U.P.C.H. Act, no interference is required in the matter.
11. There is another infirmity in this petition which has been filed on behalf of gram pradhan through private counsel without any resolution to engage private counsel as provided under Gram Samaj Manual, as such, this petition cannot be entertained.
12. The writ petition is dismissed and authorities are directed to conclude the consolidation operation in the village in question expeditiously as well as strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act.
Order Date :- 22.4.2025
Rameez
