- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Consolidation operation started by publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in official gazette on 5-7-1989. All proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act concluded and proceeding for allotment was going on. The objections under Section 20 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were pending before Consolidation Authority arising out of allotment of chaks. By a notification dated 27-11-1999 under Section 6 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act earlier notification was cancelled which is impugned in the present writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner urged that none of the conditions under Section 6 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Rule 17 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules are satisfied in the present case and as such impugned notification is vitiated in law which is liable to be quashed. In reply to the same, learned Standing Counsel supported the impugned notification and relied upon paragraph 5 of counter affidavit. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. I have also given thoughtful consideration of material available on record as well as relevant law. Section 6 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read with Rule 17 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition. Section 6 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is quoted below: Section 6.- Cancellation of notification under Section 4 (1) it shall be lawful for the State Government at any time to cancel the (notification) made under Section 4 in respect of the whole or any part of the area specified therein. (2) Where a (notification) has been cancelled in respect of any unit under sub-section (1) such area shall, subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land record, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation cease to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation. From perusal of impugned notification under Section 6 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act it is clear that no reasons have been given for cancellation. Rules 17 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules prescribed certain conditions which must be satisfied while notification under Section 6 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is made. (a) the area is under a development scheme of such a nature as when completed would render the consolidation operations inequitable to a section of the peasantry; (b) the holdings of the village are already consolidated for one reason or the order and the tenure- holders are generally satisfied with the present position; (c) the village is so torn up by party factions as to render proper consolidation proceedings in the village very difficult; and (d) that a co-ooperative society has been formed for carrying out cultivation in the area after pooling all the land of the area for this purpose.
(3.) ONLY reason supplemented by counter-affidavit in support of notification under Section 6 (1) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is that due to village politics order of cancellation of notification was passed. Rule 7 (c) makes it clear that if the village is so torn by party factions as to render proper consolidation proceedings in the village very difficult. In paragraph 6 of writ petition, clear averments have been made that about 80 percent of village people want consolidation proceedings to continue and it was only one behalf of pressure of three or four persons having allegiance to the Revenue Minister did manage to procure aforesaid order. It is also further clear from this very paragraph of writ petition that Gaon Sabha has already passed a resolution on 1-2-2000 submitted to the competent authority that the consolidation proceedings be completed at a very early date. All these facts have not been denied in counter affidavit. From perusal of resolution of Gaon Sabha it is also clear that chaks have already been allotted upto the stage of Assistant Consolidation officer and objections were filed and heard by Consolidation Officer arising out allotment proceedings.;