Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Kr. Hans Pratap Singh/learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Briefly stated facts in the present writ petition are that the petitioners, who are three in numbers have challenged the impugned order dated 7.5.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow, pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 65448 of 2013. The petitioners claim themselves to be the resident of village Chikasi, Tehsil Sarila, Hamirpur. They are opposing the consolidation proceedings in the village in question on the ground that the major portion of about 2/3rd of the land at village Chikasi is rubble, rugged, usar, Nala and stony and is not fit for agricultural operation which is surrounded by Betwa Dhasan River.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 7.5.2014 passed by Commissioner, Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow is liable to be set aside inasmuci all the villagers in question do not want consolidation. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the submission on behalf of the petitioners is wholly misconceived. The consolidation is done according to the provision of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, In the impugned order the respondent No. 3 has well considered the report of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hamirpur and the provision of section 6(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 read with Rule 17 and thereafter, rejected the representations dated 7.10.2013 and 10.2.2014. He submits that the impugned order has been validly passed and therefore no interference may be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties.;