CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition and all connected matters, the substance of the cause, that the respective petitioners canvas, is the same. They do not want the consolidation proceedings in their respective villages notified under Sec. 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, 'the Act') to go ahead. In the majority of the writ petitions, the prayer is to quash the notification under Sec. 4(2) of the Act. In three writ petitions, to wit, Writ-B No. 15 of 2025, Writ-B No. 357 of 2025 and Writ-B No.462 of 2025, the petitioners had come earlier seeking a relief to quash the notification under Sec. 4(2), but were asked by this Court to represent their cause before the Commissioner of Consolidation, U.P. The petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions represented their cause to the Commissioner of Consolidation, who, by orders of various dates, has rejected the relative representations involved in each of the said petitions. In these three writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed that the orders of the Consolidation Commissioner be quashed and respondents directed not to proceed further with consolidation operations in the respective villages. In substance, therefore, similar relief has been sought in each of the writ petitions. In one of the writ petitions, out of the three last mentioned, to wit, Writ-B No. 15 of 2025, the prayer is slightly different, in that, that after the prayer seeking to quash the order of the Consolidation Commissioner, declining to revoke the notification under Sec. 4(2) of the Act, the mandamus sought is not to restrain consolidation operations in Village Mahuji, Tehsil Sakaldiha, District Chandauli, altogether, but to issue a notification under Sec. 4(2) afresh, after excluding a certain part of the land that abuts the river.

(2.) A common question of law, arising on similar facts being involved in all these writ petitions, Writ-A No. 4772 of 2024 has been heard as the leading case. We would, therefore, notice facts as much as relevant to the question of law involved from the leading case. The common question of law, that is involved in all these petitions is if a writ petition lies questioning the issue of a notification under Sec. 4(2) of the Act. There is some inaccurate reference to Sec. 6 of the Act in the orders dtd. 31/1/2025 and 13/2/2025, which is not involved in this batch of petitions. The reference in the said orders to Sec. 6 of the Act shall be ignored. Since the question involved in all these writ petitions, above formulated, relates to maintainability, all these petitions, all learned Counsel for the petitioners were heard in support of the motion to admit the petitions to hearing.

(3.) Heard Mr. B.N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ-B No. 4772 of 2024, Writ-B No. 287 of 2025, Writ-B No. 289 of 2025, Writ-B No. 290 of 2025, Writ-B No. 291 of 2025, Writ-B No.292 of 2025; Mr. Narsingh Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ-B No. 102 of 2025 and Writ-B No. 131 of 2025; Mr. Peeyush Kumar Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents in Writ-B No. 15 of 2025; Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ-B No. 357 of 2025; and Mr. Shriprakash Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shailesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents in Writ-B No. 462 of 2025. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with Mr. Ashish Chandra Nishad, learned Standing Counsel has been heard on behalf of the State, in all the matters.