M. P. Singh, J. - (1.) -
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to decide about the illegalities before proceeding with the matter under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and also for quashing form No. 23 issued without deciding the pending objections. The writ petition seems to be mis-conceived as the petitioner has not prayed for quashing the Notification under section 4-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act published in the U. P. Gazette vide part I-Ka dated 27-6-1981 in pursuance of which the proceedings have been initiated. Initially consolidation operations came to an end in 1960 so far as Tahsil Sardhana, District Meerut is concerned. Second time consolidation proceedings started in the year 1981. Notification under section 4-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government which was published in the U. P. Gazette vide part I-Ka dated 27-6-1981 (pp. 1243-44). The relevant extract of the Gazette is being reproduced below :- After start of the consolidation operations admittedly an objection was filed before the Consolidation Officer making a complaint against continuance of the name of the petitioner and other tenure-holders regarding Khata No. 25. The Consolidation Officer after giving full and fair opportunity to the petitioner and other tenure-holders by his order dated 6-6-1986 decided the matter and held that Ajab Singh and other tenure-holders have share in the property in dispute. A copy of the said order has been filed to the counter affidavit as C. A. I against which an appeal is pending before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The petitioner is a party to this proceeding. The petitioner has concealed this material fact in the writ petition that he has been contesting about his title before the consolidation authorities. This fact alone is sufficient for dismissing the writ petition.
(3.) THE learned counsel submitted that the language of sections 4 and 4-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act is entirely different. In section 4-A the legislature has used the expression 'it is expedient in the public interest so to do'. This phrase has not been used in section 4. His contention is that in case if for the second time a Notification is issued under section 4-A then the State Govt, must record its reasons for issuing a fresh Notification under section 4-A that it was expedient in public interest so to do. Failure on the part of the Government to record reasons, the Notification under section 4-A published in 1981 becomes bad and may be quashed. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an unreported decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2482 of 1974, Ram Kishan v. Director of Consolidation, decided by Justice Hari Swaroop (Retd) on 14-8-1974. This decision is of no relevance so far as the point raised by counsel for the petitioner is concerned. It was a case in which it was prayed that the respondents may be directed to decide the objection judiciously filed by the petitioner and other tenure holders of the village. It was argued in that case that Rules 20-A, 24 and 46 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, have not been complied with inasmuch as neither the Consolidation Committee was consulted nor enquiry was made from the tenure holders. In the instant case there is no complaint whether the Assistant Consolidation Officer has consulted the Consolidation Committee or not and made enquiries from tenure holders of the village before taking steps in enforcing the consolidation. The Court while deciding that writ petition only issued direction to the Assistant Consolidation Officer that in case if the objections were filed in terms of Rules 20-A, 24 (2) and 46 of the Rules then the Assistant Consolidation Officer should decide the same after giving opportunity to the petitioner and other tenure holders. This case is wholly of no relevance to the controversy in this case.;