Allahabad High Court
Sriprakash Singh And Others vs Learned Consolidation Commissioner, ... on 6 December, 2024
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81535 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1214 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sriprakash Singh And Others Respondent :- Learned Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondents Nos.1 to 5 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief, which read as under:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed by learned Consolidation Commissioner, UP, Lucknow bearing No.8759/Vi.Pra/Sa (as contained in Annexure-1), in the interest of justice;
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned Notification No.2067/G-610/2012 dated 06.06.2015 published in Gazette under Section 4-A (2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and published in village Raikwaredih on 02.02.2016, whereby consolidation proceedings in village Raikawaredih, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau, UP is under process (as contained in Annexure-2), in the interest of justice;
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby stay the implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed by learned Consolidation Commissioner, UP, Lucknow bearing No.8759/Vi.Pra/Sa, during the pendency of this petition, in the interest of justice;
(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent authorities to not proceed with consolidation proceeding in village Raikawaredih, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau pursuant to impugned Notification No.2067/G-610/2012 dated 26.05.2015 as published in official Gazette on 06.06.2015 under Section 4-A (2) of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which was published in village on 02.02.2016, during the pendency of this petition, in the interest of justice;
(v) Such other and further order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Consolidation Commissioner was required to examine the issue regarding whether it would be in the interest to cancel the consolidation proceedings. It is urged that this aspect has not been appropriately considered by the Consolidation Commissioner and the representation given by the petitioners has been rejected vide order dated 12th August, 2024.
4. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, this Court is reminded of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Public Interest Ligation (PIL) No.2486 of 2015 - M/s. Runup Gramodyog Evam Sewa Sansthan through its President v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 23.03.2022. Considering the dictum as laid down in the aforesaid decision that a writ petition assailing a decision whereby the Consolidation Commissioner takes a call as to whether continuation of consolidation or its cancellation would be in the interest of the villagers cannot be made the subject matter of a writ petition. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
"2. The issue is no more res integra having been settled way back by a Division Bench of this Court in Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limited Vs. State of U.P. 1976 RD 35.In this case it was held that the notifications issued either under Section 4 of Section 6 of 1953 Act are not in exercise of an executive function but a legislative function. This judgment records as follows:
"As already held, the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act are issued by the State Government in exercise of conditional legislative powers. It cannot be conceivably contended that this Court can issue a mandamus to the legislature to legislate on any subject or to apply any law to any area."
3. Referring toAgricultural and Industiral Syndicate Limited' case (supra)and Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment inHarbhajan SinghVs.State of Himachal Pradesh(2010) 13 SCC 555, another Division Bench of this Court inDalip Singh andothers Vs.Vikram Singh andothers 2015 (5) AWC 4427, observed:
"5. The provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (supra). The Division Bench held that when the Director of Consolidation issues a notification under Section 4 or Section 6, he performs neither a quasi judicial function nor does he exercise an administrative power. In the view of the Division Bench, the power was of a Legislative nature. Moreover, it was held that if a notification is issued under Section 6, the land holder has no rights which are affected in consequence of such a notification. The Supreme Court in the judgment in Harbhajan Singh (supra) while considering a similar provision contained in Section 16(1) of the Consolidation Act in the State of Himachal Pradesh held as follows :
"It is, thus, clear that it is only when the persons entitled to possession of holdings under the Act have been delivered possession of the holdings that they acquire rights, title and interest in the new holding allotted to them and the consolidation scheme in the area is deemed to have come into force. Till such possession of the allotted land under the consolidation scheme is delivered to the allottees and the consolidation scheme is deemed to come into force, the State Government has the power under Section 16(1) of the Act to cancel the declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act."
The Supreme Court also held as follows:
"We have already held that the State Government can issue a notification under Section 16(1) of the Act cancelling the declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act in respect of any area at any time before the persons entitled to possession of holdings under the Act have entered into possession of the holdings allotted to them. Since, before the persons enter into possession of the holdings allotted to them, they do not acquire any right, title and interest in the holdings allotted to them and they do not lose in any manner their rights, title and interest in their original holdings, their rights are not affected by the issuance of a notification under Section 16(1) of the Act. In other words, a notification under Section 16(1) of the Act issued by the State Government before delivery of possession of the allotted holdings to persons has no civil consequences and, therefore, the State Government is not required to follow the principles of natural justice before issuing such a notification."
6. The principle of law which has been laid down in the judgment of the Division Bench and in the judgment of the Supreme Court is that before persons have entered into possession of the holdings allotted to them, they do not acquire any right, title or interest and they would not lose their rights by the issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Act. That is the position in law. The writ petition challenging the notification under Section 6 of the Act was not maintainable since there were no rights enuring to the benefit of the original petitioners which were taken away or affected by a notification under Section 6 of the Act."
5. In light of the aforesaid decision in Runup Gramodyog Evam Sewa Sansthan (supra), this Court is of the view that the instant petition is not maintainable, which is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.12.2024 Ashutosh