SHAILENDRA NATH RAI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners along with other villagers of the village Maudhiya, Pargana + Tehsil Jakhaniya, Ghazipur filed an application before the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow on 13/9/2006 with the prayer that provisional consolidation scheme be taken place afresh or the village in question be notified under Sec. 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P.C.H. Act") in order to protect the land belonging to Gaon Sabha. On the aforementioned application dtd. 13/9/2006, an objection was invited by respondent No. 1 from his subordinate authorities vide order dtd. 22/9/2006. One Smt. Sona Devi filed an application along with order dtd. 2/3/2007, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11742/2004 before respondent No. 1 on which an explanation was asked from the authorities, accordingly, the consolidation authorities have jointly submitted a report on 19/5/2007 before respondent No. 1. On the basis of the aforementioned report, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has also submitted his report. Respondent No. 2/Deputy Director of Consolidation, submitted his report on 4/6/2007 before respondent No. 1/Consolidation Commissioner. On the basis of the report of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dtd. 4/6/2007, respondent No. 1/Consolidation Commissioner passed the impugned order dtd. 5/7/2007, directing to start demarcation proceedings as well as delivery of possession to the tenure holders of the village. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, challenging the impugned order dtd. 5/7/2007, passed by respondent No. 1/Consolidation Commissioner as well as for mandamus, directing the respondents not to demarcate and not to initiate the proceeding of delivery of possession regarding public utility lands recorded in the name of the gaon sabha or to restart the consolidation proceedings from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer after removing false and fictitious entry from the revenue papers.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 2/8/2007 entertained the matter, issued notice to respondent No. 5, inviting counter-affidavit from State as well as from respondent No. 5 and granted interim protection, staying the operation of the impugned order dtd. 5/7/2007, passed by respondent No. 1/ Consolidation Commissioner as well as the implementation of provisional consolidation scheme was ordered to be kept in abeyance.