B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by 2.5 persons of village Totaher Mustakil in Distt. Gorakhpur. They have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents viz. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, Director of Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary, Revenue Department Lucknow, not to proceed with the consolidation operation in village Totaher Mustakil and Totaha Ehatmali, in pursuance of a notification dated 22-2-1986 under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter called Act). The grievances of the petitioners are that in these two villages it is difficult to carry out the consolidation operation in pursuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act as in village Totaha Mustakil there are 1000 houses and the population is more than 10000 and total area of the village is 301 acres and total plots are 1009 according to the report of the Consolidation Officer, Gorakhpur and only 199 acres of land is worth consolidation operation. In respect of the other village also, similar complaints have been made. The application by the residents of both the villages have been filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure I). On that application a report from the Consolidation Officer was obtained, who has submitted a report (Annexure 3) to the effect that the consolidation operation may be carried out considering the area of the villages.
(2.) In the next part of the report it has been stated that 80% residents of village want that the consolidation operation may be carried out. Only 20% of the villagers are opposing consolidation operation (vide page 54 of the paper Book). This report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was submitted to the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who in his turn submitted it to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who has rejected the demand of the petitioners by the impugned order dated 5-9-1989.
(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in these two villages on account of the complaints made it was not possible to carry out the consolidation operation. Even certified copy of the,map of the revenue records are not available. Much reliance was placed on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1976 R.D. 35). It was further urged that the respondents be directed to issue notification under Section 5 of the Act canceling the notification under Section 4. The respondent have refused to issue notification under Section 6. It was further urged that it was duty of respondents to have issued notification under Section 6 of the Act and they failed to carry out their statutory duty imposed upon them, hence the case for the issuance of writ of mandamus has been made out.;