SAROJ SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Consolidation operation started by publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in official gazette on 5-7-1989. All proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act concluded and proceeding for allotment was going on. The objections under Section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were pending before Consolidation Authority arising out of allotment of chaks. By a notification dated 27-11-1999 under Section 6 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act earlier notification was cancelled which is impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner urged that none of the conditions under Section 6 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Rule 17 of U. P. 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.

(3.) ONLY reason supplemented by counter-affidavit in support of notification under Section 6 (1) of U. P. 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.