PRAVEEN YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State respondents No. 1 to 4.

(2.) The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dtd. 22/7/2024 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner (respondent No. 2) whereby representation moved on his behalf beseeching issuance of notification under Sec. 6(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'UPCH Act') to cancel the consolidation operation has been rejected.

(3.) Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and perusal of record, it is manifested that the village in question i.e. Gram Bhandri, Tehsil Sirsaganj, District Firozabad, is second time notified for Consolidation operation in the year 2009-And the consolidation operation is still going on in the village. The previous consolidation operation was completed in the year 1964. It is case of the petitioner that most of the villagers are in favour of cancelling the consolidation operation, therefore, a representation was moved before the authorities concern to cancel the notification under Sec. 4-A (2) of the UPCH Act by virtue of promulgation of a notification under Sec. 6(1) of UPCH Act. Having found delay in deciding the said representation, the petitioner has approached before this Hon'ble Court by filing Writ-B No. 2564 of 2019, beseeching a direction commanding the consolidation authorities to issue a notification under Sec. 6(1) of UPCH Act. A Co-ordinate Bench of this court, vide order dtd. 26/11/2019, has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction that the representation dtd. 30/9/2019 pending before the Consolidation Commissioner shall be decided in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. In pursuance of the order dtd. 26/11/2019, the petitioner has approached before the learned Consolidation Commissioner and submitted a representation alongwith a certified copy of the order dtd. 26/11/2019, which was received in the office of the Consolidation Commissioner on 10/12/2019. Having been received the order passed by this court, the learned Consolidation Commissioner has issued a direction to the authorities concerned to submit report qua grievance of the petitioner as mentioned in the representation dtd. 30/9/2019. The District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation has submitted his report dtd. 12/2/2020 alongwith the report dtd. 7/2/2020 submitted by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. In his representation dtd. 30/9/2019, the petitioner came with the plea that majority of villagers are satisfied with the previous consolidation operation which was finalised in the year 1964 and all facilities viz. drainage lane, chak road, pasture land, school, hospital and abadi site are available, therefore, a second round consolidation operation is not required. It is further averred in the application that the consolidation authorities are unnecessarily harassing the villagers by disturbing the valuation and area of plots which is causing harassment and oppression to the villagers. There are groupism in the village pertaining to carrying out the consolidation operation and there are sufficient grounds available for the cancellation of the consolidation operation as enunciated under Rule 17 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. It has also been emphasised in the representation that more than 70% of the villagers are in favour of cancelling the consolidation operation.