Deep Narain vs State of U.P.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set a side/quash the order dated 22.10.2012 (contended as Annexure No. 8) passed by respondent No. 2.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash consolidation proceeding of the Village Magrdha, Paragana Barhar, Tehsil Ghorawl, District Sonbhadra upto the stage of survey in pursuance to resolution dated 21.03.2010 (Annexure No. 1) passed by Gram Panchayat as well as the report dated 11.02.2013 and 23.8.2013 submitted by consolidation officer/Assistant Consolidation officer (Annexure No. 10). "

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that large scale irregularities were committed by the Consolidation authorities in the process of consolidation in the unit. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon various reports filed along with the writ petition as also the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the order of this Court dated 14.11.2013.

Reliance has also been placed on certain reports filed along with the rejoinder affidavit. Insofar as reports filed along with the rejoinder affidavit are concerned, reliance upon the same is not permissible because the respondents have not been granted any opportunity to rebut the same.

Second contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the writ petition has been filed by the poor tenure holders of the unit.

Learned Standing Counsel opposing the writ petition, has submitted that some minor discrepancies, which had been pointed out in the writ petition, have since been remedied. The consolidation operations have been concluded. But for the interim order, granted by this Court, the notification under Section 52 of the Act, closing consolidation operations, would have been issued. He has, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The relevant portion of the order passed by this Court on 14.11.2013, relied upon, in support of the writ petition is quoted herein below:

"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. In the supplementary affidavit as annexed the report of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 12.9.2013 in which he has found that various chak holders have been allotted less valuation thus total valuation of Rs. 944.44 has to be given to them. He further found that several chak holders have been given more valuation and total valuation of Rs. 506.18 have been deducted from chak. He further found that there has been double entry of various plots due to which a valuation of Rs. 882.83 has been allotted double in the chak holders. Thus a mass of illegality committed during consolidation operation have been directed The Consolidation Commissioner while deciding the representation of the petitioners in this respect in the impugned order has overlooked to examine the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer."

Perusal of the writ petition as also the various reports reveals that all the allegations are general in nature and point out various discrepancies during the ensuing consolidation operations.

The UP Consolidation of Holdings Act is a complete code in itself and provides for objections, appeals and revisions at every stage of the consolidation proceedings. Every tenure-holder, who is aggrieved by the process of consolidation, has a right of raising objections. Once the objections are decided, the order passed, is subject to appeal and thereafter a revision under Section 48 of the Act. Therefore, an adequate mechanism is provided under the Act itself for addressing the grievances of the tenure-holders at every stage of consolidation operations.

This Court, therefore, does not find any justification to interfere, specially when the Consolidation Commissioner, after hearing the petitioners and after considering their grievances, has recorded that the complaints raised by the petitioners, were found to be incorrect. Therefore, he come to a conclusion that there is no justification for either starting the consolidation operations, de novo, or for cancelling the consolidation operations. Accordingly, the representation, filed by the petitioners, has been rejected.

The scheme of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act as also the provisions entitling an aggrieved tenure holder to file objections at various stages of consolidation operations, have been referred to in the earlier part of this order. In the context of the said observations, it would be relevant to note that the writ petition does not refer to any objection having been filed by any of the petitioners as regards their individual grievances, if any.

In the absence of any such material, the finding referred by the Consolidation Commissioner, while rejecting the representation of the petitioners, becomes very significant. The Court, therefore, finds that there is no material on record to controvert the finding that the complaints, raised, are incorrect.

Besides, as already observed, the allegations made in paragraphs 28, 30, 31 and its sub-paragraphs are general in nature, without alluding to any specifics.

The order of the Consolidation Commissioner, therefore, requires no interference.

Besides, a Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. State of UP; 1976 RD 35, and thereafter a Division Bench in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 421 of 2015, Dalip Singh and 3 others v. Vikram Singh and 6 others, have held that the notifications, issued under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, are conditional legislation, and cannot be interfered with by the Writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as any direction by the Writ Court would amount to directing the legislature to legislate in a particular manner. Such a direction was found to be beyond the scope of powers conferred by under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.