GIRWAR SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) BY means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to decide about the illegalities before proceeding with the matter under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and also for quashing form No. 23 issued without deciding the pending objections. The writ petition seems to be mis-conceived as the petitioner has not prayed for quashing the Notification under section 4-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act published in the U. P. Gazette vide part I-Ka dated 27-6-1981 in pursuance of which the proceedings have been initiated.

(3.) THE learned counsel submitted that the language of sections 4 and 4-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act is entirely different. In section 4-A the legislature has used the expression 'it is expedient in the public interest so to do'. This phrase has not been used in section 4. His contention is that in case if for the second time a Notification is issued under section 4-A then the State Govt, must record its reasons for issuing a fresh Notification under section 4-A that it was expedient in public interest so to do. Failure on the part of the Government to record reasons, the Notification under section 4-A published in 1981 becomes bad and may be quashed. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an unreported decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2482 of 1974, Ram Kishan v. Director of Consolidation, decided by Justice Hari Swaroop (Retd) on 14-8-1974. This decision is of no relevance so far as the point raised by counsel for the petitioner is concerned. It was a case in which it was prayed that the respondents may be directed to decide the objection judiciously filed by the petitioner and other tenure holders of the village. It was argued in that case that Rules 20-A, 24 and 46 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, have not been complied with inasmuch as neither the Consolidation Committee was consulted nor enquiry was made from the tenure holders.