Satish vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5705 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Satish vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 March, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30009
 
Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 226 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Satish
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hinchh Lal Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
 

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the notification dated 21.06.2024, cancelling consolidation operations that commenced with the issue of a notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. It is further prayed that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to re-initiate proceedings for consolidation in Village Khodai, Pargana Shikohabad, Tehsil Sirsaganj, District Firozabad.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Hinchh Lal Pandey in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing.

3. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given any information about the impending cancellation, which has prejudiced the petitioner and the natives of the village from the benefit of consolidation. It is said that on 27.02.2024, some meeting was held between the villagers and the authorities, which has resulted into the notification impugned being issued, but the petitioner and multitude natives of the village did not know anything about it. It is also averred in paragraph no. 21 that majority of the villagers want re-initiation of the proceedings under the Act of 1953. It is also urged that Rule 17 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 has not been followed, while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1953. It is also emphasized that consolidation proceedings in the neighbouring villages, that commenced alongside the petitioner's village, are still continuing. The petitioner claims that the natives of the village like him are being discriminated when juxtaposed against the residents of the adjoining villages, who have all the advantages of consolidation coming their way. There is a minority and minuscule section of the villagers who do not want consolidation, and that cannot be a valid consideration for the respondents to cancel the ongoing proceedings that have reached the stage of Section 20 of the Act of 1953.

4. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has opposed the motion to admit this petition to hearing.

5. Upon hearing learned Counsel appearing for the parties, what we find is that the petitioner wants this Court to quash the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1953 and follow it up by a mandamus, directing the Government or the Consolidation Commissioner to issue a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953, initiating consolidation operations in the village again. The question, if a notification under Section 6, or for that matter, Section 4 of the Act of 1953, can be assailed by a resident of the village, in relation to which, one of these notifications have been issued, is, by far, well settled. A notification under Section 6 can be questioned if in terms of the proceedings already done, possession of chak has been delivered to the residents of the village who would, in consequence of the cancellation, be deprived of their consolidated holdings. If that consequence does not ensure and no possession has been delivered, there is no right inhering in the residents of the village to question a notification under Section 6, or one under Section 4, on grounds normally associated with challenge to any administrative or executive order. The law is that if at all one of these notifications were to be challenged, it is to be on grounds that a legislation can be impugned. The issue of a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 is settled by preponderant authority to be an instance of exercise of the legislative powers of the State; not executive powers. It is for this reason these notifications can be questioned on grounds akin to challenge raised to the vires of a Statute; nothing else. This question has engaged attention of a Division Bench of this Court in Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate Ltd vs. State of U.P. 1975d SCC OnLine All 521, which was followed by a learned Single Judge in Raja Ram Ojha vs. Consolidation Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow and others, 2014 SCC OnLine All 15410. In a later decision, the position was reiterated by a Division Bench in Vishvadev vs. Director of Consolidation and others Neutral Citation No. -2016:AHC:182608-DB. The exception carved out in case of challenge to a notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1953, where possession of the allotted chak has been delivered, has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court, following the footsteps of the Supreme Court in Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2011 AIR SCW 195. Their Lordships of the Division Bench in Dalip Singh and others vs. Vikram Singh and others, 2015 SCC OnLine All 7569, following Harbhajan Singh (supra) and noticing the holding there, observed:

"6. The Supreme Court also held as follows:

?We have already held that the State Government can issue a notification under section 16(1) of the Act cancelling the declaration under section 14(1) of the Act in respect of any area at any time before the persons entitled to possession of holdings under the Act have entered into possession of the holdings allotted to them. Since before the persons enter into possession of the holdings allotted to them, they do not acquire any right, title and interest in the holdings allotted to them and they do not lose in any manner their rights, title and interest in their original holdings, their rights are not affected by the issuance of a notification under section 16(1) of the Act. In other words, a notification under section 16(1) of the Act issued by the State Government before delivery of possession of the allotted holdings to persons has no civil consequences and, therefore, the State Government is not required to follow the principles of natural justice before issuing such a notification.?

7. The principle of law, which has been laid down in the judgment of the Division Bench and in the judgment of the Supreme Court, is that before persons have entered into possession of the holdings allotted to them, they do not acquire any right, title or interest and they would not lose their rights by the issuance of a notification under section 6 of the Act. That is the position of law. The writ petition, challenging the notification under section 6 of the Act, was not maintainable since there were no rights enuring to the benefit of the original petitioners which were taken away or affected by a notification under section 6 of the Act.

8. A counter affidavit was filed in the proceedings before the learned Single Judge by the Consolidation Officer stating that after the notification was issued under section 4-A(2) of the Act on 30 May, 1970 for launching consolidation operations, the Consolidation Authorities made several attempts to complete the work of demarcation and delivery of possession of chaks, but the rival groups in the village seriously opposed the work of demarcation. There was an apprehension of a breach of peace in the village, as a result of which it became impossible to start and complete the work at the stage of Section 24 of the Act. The village was notified in 1970 and, though more than 40 years had elapsed, the village consolidation scheme could not be implemented. In these compelling circumstances, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation directed the District Consolidation Authority to submit a report on whether a consolidation scheme in the village could be completed or not. Pursuant thereto, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Consolidation Officer visited the village. In the course of the inquiry, it was found that during the pendency of certain writ petitions before this Court, stay orders had been passed and there was serious local opposition to the work of demarcation. Despite the passage of nearly forty years, the villagers were still in possession of their original holdings and almost ail the villagers were in favour of the issuance of a notification under section 6 of the Act. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) reported the matter to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation who, in turn, forwarded it to the Consolidation Commissioner for appropriate action. It was on this basis that a decision was taken to cancel the notification under section 4 of the Act since it was found that there was no need to effect a change, the villagers being in possession of their plots for almost forty years. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants has a clear basis in the law which has been laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court as well as in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court noted above. The issuance of a notification under section 6 of the Act cannot be regarded as arbitrary having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case noted above. No rights enuring to the benefit of the first, second and third respondents stood affected by the issuance of a notification under section 6 of the Act. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the notification was clearly not warranted. The learned Single Judge, in fact, issued a further direction to the consolidation authorities to ensure the demarcation of chaks and the delivery of possession with the assistance of police force. These directions have caused serious prejudice to the appellants who are not parties to the proceedings and would be directly affected by such directions."

6. The Division Bench in Dalip Singh (supra), referred to the earlier Bench decision of this Court in Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate Ltd (supra) with approval.

7. In the conspectus of all what has been held hereinbefore, no case for interference with the impugned notification is made out. This petition fails and is dismissed summarily.

Order Date :- 4.3.2025

Deepak