- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 who claim themselves to be members of the Consolidation Committee of village Akraura, District Behraich (now District Shrawasti) and petitioner No. 8 the Con solidation Committee Unit Akraura, pray for issuance of a Writ order or direction in the nature of ceniorari to quash the order dated 19-9-98 whereby the request of the petitioners to stop consolidation proceed ings and to conduct the said proceedings afresh has been rejected and for quashing of the whole consolidation proceedings of the said village. Prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to finalise/confirm the provisional consolidation scheme and to hold consolidation proceedings afresh from very beginning has also been made.
(2.) IT appears that the Gram Sabha of village-Akraura adopted a resolution on 15-4-1998 to oppose and boycott the con solidation proceedings in the village, to insist upon the authorities to cancel the consolidation proceedings in the said vil lage and to conduct the proceedings afresh, on the ground that certain ir regularities were committed by the con solidation staff posted in the circle. The said resolution is stated to have been com municated to various authorities named in the Annexure No. 4-A to the writ petition, by post on 24-4-98. Since no action on the said resolution was taken by any one of the authorities, the petitioners approach this Court and filed a writ petition No. 396 (Cons.) of 1998; Smt. Neelam Chaud hary and Others. v. State of U. P. and Others. The said writ petition was disposed of finally by order dated 3-8-98 by this Court, which is quoted below: "the petitioner has already approached the Deputy Director (Consolidation) against the consolidation scheme of the village. The Deputy Director stayed the scheme for fifteen days only and thereafter did not pass any order. 'i am of the view that the Deputy Director of (Consolidation) should pass order on merit expeditiously say within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 'with aforesaid observation this writ peti tion stands finally disposed of. " The aforesaid order is alleged to have been communicated to the Deputy Director of Consolidation with an applica tion dated 10-8-1998. In obedience of the order passed by this Court, the Deputy Director of Consolidation firstly tried to ascertain the alleged irregularities com mitted by consolidation staff in the village which were stated to be 35 in number. Thereafter, he got an inquiry conducted through consolidation officer concerned who after conducting the inquiry sub mitted his report dated 20th of June, 1998 to the effect that out of 35 matters, only in 14 matters some irregularities were detected. The Deputy Director of Con solidation observed that steps were being taken to remove the aforesaid ir regularities. It was also held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that there were as many as, 762 chaks carved out in the village, out of which in only 118 cases objections were filed by the tenure-holders which were about 15 per cent of the total number, of the chak allotment cases/the said percentage of the objec tions was normal and on the basis of the same it was not necessary to conduct the consolidation proceedings afresh. Having recorded the said findings the objec tion/application of the petitioners was rejected by order dated 19-9-98 which is impugned in the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that consolidation proceedings were being conducted in the village in violation of provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, they were, as such, illegal and were liable to be quashed. The Deputy Director of Con solidation, according to him, has acted illegally in rejecting the objection filed by the petitioners. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel supported the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was urged that writ petition was wholly misconceived, as it was based on vague allegations and imaginary facts. It was urged that the U. P. Consolida tion of Holdings Act js a complete Code in itself. If any one of the tenure-holder feels aggrieved by any order passed or action taken by any one of the Consolidation Authorities constituted under the said Act, he has got the right to file objection in accordance with law and if objections are filed the procedure and machinery for dis posing of objections has been provided in the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. According to the learned Standing Coun sel the application filed by the petitioners for dropping/staying the proceedings in the village was wholly misconceived and was legally not maintainable, the same has rightly been rejected by the Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation.
(3.) 1 have considered the rival submis sions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The questions that arise for con sideration by this Court in the present case are as to whether the writ petition as framed and filed by the petitioners is legal ly maintainable, whether this Court can direct the consolidation authorities or the State Government not to proceed with the consolidation operations in pursuance of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and as to whether the whole consolidation proceedings in the aforesaid village can be quashed by this Court.;