USMAN GANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the Instant writ petition, the petitioner ts seeking relief In the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to quash the entire consolidation proceedings by denotifying village Lai, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil Soraon, district Allahabad under Section 6 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as Act oi 1953), as they have done in respect of village Kudha, vide Annexures-9 and 10 to the writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri N. D. Keshari at length and perused the provisions envisaged under Section 6 of the Act of 1953.

(2.) From the perusal of the aforesaid section, I am of the opinion that the State Government, under Section 6 of the Act of 1953, is empowered with exclusive jurisdiction to cancel the Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 in respect of the whole or part of the area specified therein. It is further to be noticed that where Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 is cancelled in respect of any unit under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, such area shall subject to final order relating to the correction of the land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, ceases to be under consolidation operation with effect from the date of such cancellation. State Government has reliable ears and eyes to ascertain the facts leading to cancellation of Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 in exercise of its power under subsection (1) of Section 6 of the said Act whereas this Court has no mechanism to ascertain the facts for cancellation of Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953.

(3.) There is yet another reason to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. To my mind, the power conferred upon the State Government under Section 6 of the Act of 1953 to cancel a Notification under Section 4 of the said Act whole and part of the area specified therein is in the nature of policy decision taken by the State Government under aforesaid section and it cannot be permitted to be assailed as a matter of course without demonstrating that policy decision in denotifying whole or part of an area taken by the State Government in breach of either statutory provision or in breach of constitutional philosophy. The State Government has taken a policy decision to cancel the Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 of village Kudha in exercise of its power conferred under Section 6 of the said Act and it cannot be compelled to take policy decision to cancel the Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 relating to village Lai as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner miserably failed to bring to my notice any breach of either statutory provision or constitutional provision in not cancelling the Notification under Section 4 relating to village Lai.