- (1.) HEARD Sri M. A. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition has been made to the order dated 22-9-2006 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner rejecting the representation moved by the petitioners for cancellation of the consolidation proceedings. The facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'act') with regard to village in question, was published in Official Gazette on 3-5- 2001. An application dated 9-6-2001 was moved by the petitioners before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation for cancellation of the same on the ground that most of the tenure- holders are satisfied and do not want fresh consolidation. A resolution dated 12-1-2005 to the same effect alleged to have been passed by Gaon Sabha was also filed. However, when no action was taken on the said application, the petitioner approached this Court by means of writ petition No. 28565 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 24-5-2006 directing that petitioners may approach Director of Consolidation by moving appropriate application who shall pass orders thereon in accordance with law within three months from the date of presentation of the application. It is alleged that the copy of the order alongwith an application was forwarded to the Director of Consolidation by registered post on 30-5-2006 and a reminder was also sent on 6-10-2006. However, instead of Director of Consolidation, Consolidation Commissioner has rejected the representation of the petitioners. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that once this Court directed the Director of Consolidation to decide the representation of the petitioners, the same ought to have been decided by him and the consolidation commissioner had no authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.
(3.) IT has further been urged that when it was found by the Consolidation Commissioner that there was party bandi in the village the consolidation operation ought to have been cancelled. However, he wrongly and illegally rejected the application/representation. In reply, learned standing Counsel has tried to justify the impugned order.;