Smt. Saroj Sharma vs State of U.P. and Others

S.N. Srivastava, J.—Consolidation operation started by publication of notification u/s 4(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act in official Gazette on 5.7.1989. All proceeding under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act concluded and proceeding for allotment was going on. The objections u/s 20 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act were pending before Consolidation Authority arising out of allotment of chaks. By a notification dated 27.11.1999 u/s 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act earlier notification was cancelled which is impugned in the present writ petition.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner urged that none of the conditions u/s 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Rule 17 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules are satisfied in the present case and as such impugned notification is vitiated in law which is liable to be quashed. In reply to the same, learned standing Counsel supported the impugned notification and relied upon paragraph 5 of counter-affidavit.

Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned standing Counsel. I have also given thoughtful consideration to material available on record as well as relevant law. Section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Rule 17 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition. Section 6 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act is quoted below:

Section 6. Cancellation of notification u/s 4.-(1) It shall be lawful for the State Government at any time to cancel the (notification) made u/s 4 in respect of the whole or any part of the area specified therein.

(2) Where a (notification) has been cancelled in respect of any unit under Sub-section (1), such area shall, subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, cease to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation.

From perusal of impugned notification u/s 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act it is clear that no reasons have been given for cancellation. Rules 17 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules prescribed certain conditions which must be satisfied while notification u/s 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act is made:

(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 cooperative society has been formed for carrying out cultivation in the area after pooling all the land of the area for this purpose.

Only reason supplemented by counter-affidavit in support of notification u/s 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act is that due to village politics order of cancellation of notification was passed. Rule 7(c) makes it clear that if the village is so torn by party factions as to render proper consolidation proceedings in the village very difficult.

In paragraph 6 of writ petition, clear averments have been made that about 80 per cent of village people want consolidation proceedings to continue and it was only on behalf of pressure of three or four persons having allegiance to the Revenue Minister did manage to procure aforesaid order. It is also further clear from this very paragraph of writ petition that Gaon Sabha has already passed a resolution on 1.2.2000 submitted to the competent authority that the consolidation proceedings be completed at a very early date. All these facts have not been denied in counter-affidavit. From perusal of resolution of Gaon Sabha it is also clear that chaks have already been allotted upto the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer and objections were filed and heard by Consolidation Officer arising out of allotment proceedings.

In view of the fact borne out from writ petition, counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit, it is clear that none of the grounds contained in Rule 17 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules is made out and notification u/s 6(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act is liable to be quashed.

With the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned notification dated 27.11.1999, issued by Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow, u/s 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, is hereby quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding Consolidation Authorities opposite parties to complete consolidation proceedings as soon as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.