Jai Prakash Ojha And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9783 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Jai Prakash Ojha And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 28 April, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67012
 
Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1584 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Ojha And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi,Phool Singh Yadav,Ram Pratap Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dinesh Kumar Varma, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the village in question was notified under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. C.H. Act") on 19.1.2024. The petitioners earlier filed Writ B No.2597/2024 which was disposed by this Court vide order dated 3.9.2024, directing the Consolidation Commissioner to decide the representation of the petitioners. In compliance of the order of this court, the Consolidation Commissioner has decided the petitioners' representation vide order dated 1.4.2025, hence, this writ petition for the following reliefs:-

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 1.4.2025, passed by the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. at Lucknow whereby the notification dated 19.1.2024 issued under Section 4-A(2) of Consolidation of Holdings Act has been upheld and consolidation authorities are directed to proceed with the consolidation operation in village Tenuaumafi situated in Tehsil Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the consolidation authorities not to give any effect to the order referred to above in the interest of justice."

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the majority of the villagers are not interested for consolidation operation in the village in question, accordingly, they filed representation before the Consolidation Commissioner as well as other authorities for notifying the village under Section 6 of the U.P. C.H. Act. He submitted that the representation of the petitioners has not bee decided in proper manner, considering the claim set up in the representation by the majority of the villagers. 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 submitted that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 3.9.2024 in Writ B No.2597/2024, representation of the petitioners has been considered by the Consolidation Commissioner in proper manner, directing that the consolidation operation is to be concluded in accordance with the provisions contained under the Act rather notifying the village in question under Section 6 of the U.P. C.H. Act. He submitted that no interference is required in the matter.

5. I have considered the arguments 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 the U.P. C.H. Act on 19.1.2024. There is also no dispute about the fact that in compliance of the order of this Court dated 3.9.2024 in Writ B No.2597/2024, representation of the petitioners has been decided under the impugned order.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy, involved in the matter, perusal of the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 1.4.2025 will be relevant, which as as under:-

???????? ??????? ??????, ??????, ?????

????????-9259/ ???????/ ???

????

5- ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? 27.03.2025 ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ????????? ?? ??????? ????????? ?????? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ???, ????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? 1979 ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ???

6- ???? ?? ??????????? ? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ??????????/???? ?? ?????? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? 07.03.2025 ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ???????????? ?? ????-4?(2) ?? ????????? ?????? 19.01.2024 ?????? ??????? ????????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ????????????? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? 88 ???? ???, ?????? ?? 62 ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? 32 ????????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? 27 ????????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????

?? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??????????/ ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ????????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? ??????, ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??, ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????, ????? ? ????????? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??????????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ????????????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????

??? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????????, ????? ????????, ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ? ????? ???? ?????????? / ???? ?? ?????? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ????????????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????????? ?? ??????? ????????? ?? ?????????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???????

?????????? ?????? ?? ?????????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????? ???? ???? ???

(???? ?????? ????????)

??????? ??????,

????? ???????

8. Perusal of Rule 17 of U.P.C.H. Rules will also 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."

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 Sections 4 & 6 of U.P.C.H. Act, no interference is required in the matter.

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 :- 28.4.2025

C.Prakash