Krishna Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Others

By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the following relief: "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 7.6.2016 passed by respondent no.2;

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restart the consolidation proceedings in village Oran, Tehsil Atarra, District Banda"

By the impugned order/notification dated 7 June 2016, issued under Section 6 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, notification under Section 4(2) issued on 5 May 1972 has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no reason was assigned while issuing notification under Section 6. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the notification under Section 4 and 6 are legislative in nature, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

The Division Bench in Dalip Singh and others Vs. Vikram Singh and others; 2015(128) RD 666 held that notification issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 are legislative in nature and no tenure holder can claim right, title or interest upon the land allotted to him until possession over the same has been delivered. The position of law has been summoned up in para 8: "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, titlte 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 in 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".

In Jiwan Singh and others Vs. State of U.P and others; 1984 RD 110 Single Judge of this Court held that if rights have been acquired by the tenure holders in their respective chaks under Section 30, then in the circumstances, the notification under Section 6 is a mala fide exercise. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted: "The scope of Section 6 of the Act is to issue notification upto the stage of correction of land records and not after finalization of records and conferments of new rights on the tenure-holders in their respective chaks under Section 30 of the Act. In the circumstances, and on the facts of this case there remains no doubt that the issuance of impugned notification under Section 6 of the Act is mala fide, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and is thus liable to be quashed".

On a specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show and demonstrate as to how his right have been affected by the said notification. It is admitted that during consolidation proceeding, no right or possession was conferred upon the villagers. In the circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.