A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) THE petitioners have prayed for a mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Bijnor, to take appropriate action on the application dated 10.10.2011. The grievance raised is that atleast 1 /3rd of the village had already undergone consolidation operations in the year 1962-63 and there being no dispute in relation to the said area, a re-notification of the entire village is unwarranted. Consolidation is carried out for the purpose of preparing settlement records periodically. It is for the purpose of re-arranging and consolidating division of holdings that might have taken place in the past. In the present case, re-consolidation is taking place almost after half a century. In the opinion of the Court, merely because a second round of consolidation has been introduced and there is hardly any dispute of title, the same cannot be a ground to challenge a re-consolidation process which obviously is going to take place after such a long time.
(3.) APART from this, no application to the said effect is maintainable before the District Magistrate and it is only the State Government, which has a power to cancel the notification under Section 6 of the 1953 Act. The writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.;