Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) THIS bunch of writ petitions have been filed challenging various notifications issued in exercise of powers conferred upon the State by section 6(1) of the UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (for short, Act) which have been delegated by the Government Order No. 8313/IA -813/1954 dated 19.10.1956 upon the Director of Consolidation, cancelling the notifications issued under section 4(2) of the Act whereby various villages were brought under consolidation operations. All the petitions in this bunch challenge similar notifications which have been issued regarding various villages which had earlier been brought under the consolidation operations. I have heard Shri Anu Pratap Singh, Shri Anurag Shukla, Shri Tripathi B.G. Balak Prasad, Shri Jai Singh Chauhan and Shri Shikandar Jath, who appear for the petitioners in various petitions in this bunch. I have also heard Shri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondents.
(2.) THE following points have been argued by various learned Counsels for the petitioners: "1. The Consolidation operations have been going on for a substantial period of time and the same were nearing completion or have already completed with possession having been delivered over the chaks carved out 2. Once the stage of issuance of notification under section 24 of the C.H. Act is reached, the consolidation operations cannot be cancelled and, therefore, the notification under section 6(1), which have been issued subsequent to the notification under sections 24, are liable to be quashed. All the notifications have been issued on an approved proforma and they do not assign any reasons why they consolidation operations are being cancelled.
(3.) THERE are hundreds of the tenure -holders (chak -holders) in each unit but the notifications cancelling the consolidation operations have been issued, citing interim orders granted by this Court in one or two cases, which are said to have held up the consolidation operations for a substantial period of time. This reason has been disclosed either in the counter affidavits that have been filed or this information has been provided to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act.;