Kedar Nath Singh and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and Others in support of his argument

5. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners cannot be entertained, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that due to the interim order granted by this Court, the entire consolidation proceeding of the village in question is held up. He further submitted that the instant petition has been filed by nine petitioners but there is no land in the name of petitioner no.9 or their predecessor in the village in question but in order to delay the consolidation proceeding in the village, the instant petition was filed in the year 2012. He further submitted that if the petitioners have any grievance they have full remedy during consolidation operation to file objection, appeal and revision rather writ petition directly before this Court. He further submitted that there are 983 chak holders in the village in question. He further submitted that no irregularities or illegalities had been committed by the consolidation authorities as mentioned in the writ petition rather the authorities were proceeding according to the provisions contained under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that under the impugned order dated 21.3.2012 no prejudice has been caused to petitioners, as such, the same cannot be challenged before this Court by way of writ petition. He further submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed

6. Several impleadment applications and stay vacation applications along with counter affidavit have been filed in the instant petition stating that except the petitioners other villagers are interested in the consolidation operation in the village in question and they have no grievance regarding the consolidation operation which is going on in the village in question. It is also mentioned in their affidavit that provisional consolidation scheme has been prepared in strict adherence of the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act.

7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that the village in question was notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act on 22.8.2002 but village has not been de- notified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act due to the grant of interim order in the instant petition.

9. Perusal of the averment made in paragraph nos. 3, 4 & 8 of the counter affidavit of state demonstrate that authorities were proceeding according to the provision contained under the U.P.C.H. Act and rules framed thereunder.

10. Under the impugned order dated 21.3.2012, which has been challenged by the petitioners in the instant writ petition, further date has been fixed by the revisional Court, as such, there is no case for interference by this Court against the impugned order by which the date has been fixed for hearing of the revision.

11. Under the U.P.C.H. Act full procedure has been prescribed to the tenure holders to file objection, appeal and revision for the redressal of their grievance, the provision has also been made under Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act for filing objection against the statement of principle, as such, filing of writ petition by the some of the villagers against the interlocutory order passed in the revision as well as for quashing the provisional consolidation scheme in order to held up the entire consolidation proceedings in the village in question is total abuse of process of law.

12. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners will not be applicable in the facts and circumstrances of the instant case.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, there is no scope of interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect to the relief claimed in the instant petition.

14. The writ petition is dismissed and the consolidation authorities are directed to proceed with the consolidation operation in the village in question expeditiously and strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act.

15. No order as to Costs. Order Date :- 21.5.2025/Rameez RAMEEZ AHMED RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

5. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners cannot be entertained, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that due to the interim order granted by this Court, the entire consolidation proceeding of the village in question is held up. He further submitted that the instant petition has been filed by nine petitioners but there is no land in the name of petitioner no.9 or their predecessor in the village in question but in order to delay the consolidation proceeding in the village, the instant petition was filed in the year 2012. He further submitted that if the petitioners have any grievance they have full remedy during consolidation operation to file objection, appeal and revision rather writ petition directly before this Court. He further submitted that there are 983 chak holders in the village in question. He further submitted that no irregularities or illegalities had been committed by the consolidation authorities as mentioned in the writ petition rather the authorities were proceeding according to the provisions contained under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that under the impugned order dated 21.3.2012 no prejudice has been caused to petitioners, as such, the same cannot be challenged before this Court by way of writ petition. He further submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed

6. Several impleadment applications and stay vacation applications along with counter affidavit have been filed in the instant petition stating that except the petitioners other villagers are interested in the consolidation operation in the village in question and they have no grievance regarding the consolidation operation which is going on in the village in question. It is also mentioned in their affidavit that provisional consolidation scheme has been prepared in strict adherence of the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act.

7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the fact that the village in question was notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act on 22.8.2002 but village has not been de- notified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act due to the grant of interim order in the instant petition.

9. Perusal of the averment made in paragraph nos. 3, 4 & 8 of the counter affidavit of state demonstrate that authorities were proceeding according to the provision contained under the U.P.C.H. Act and rules framed thereunder.

10. Under the impugned order dated 21.3.2012, which has been challenged by the petitioners in the instant writ petition, further date has been fixed by the revisional Court, as such, there is no case for interference by this Court against the impugned order by which the date has been fixed for hearing of the revision.

11. Under the U.P.C.H. Act full procedure has been prescribed to the tenure holders to file objection, appeal and revision for the redressal of their grievance, the provision has also been made under Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act for filing objection against the statement of principle, as such, filing of writ petition by the some of the villagers against the interlocutory order passed in the revision as well as for quashing the provisional consolidation scheme in order to held up the entire consolidation proceedings in the village in question is total abuse of process of law.

12. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners will not be applicable in the facts and circumstrances of the instant case.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, there is no scope of interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect to the relief claimed in the instant petition.

14. The writ petition is dismissed and the consolidation authorities are directed to proceed with the consolidation operation in the village in question expeditiously and strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act.

15. No order as to Costs. Order Date :- 21.5.2025/Rameez RAMEEZ AHMED RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad