Krishna Wati and others v. State of U.P. and others)

1. Heard Ms. Parul Gupta and Ms. Navya Srivastava for the petitioners and Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, as such, they are being decided by this common order.

3. By means of the present writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification dated 6.1.2001 passed by opposite party No.2 who is Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. thereby rescinding the 2 WRIB No. 797 of 2002 notification under Section 4-A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act issued on 17.1.1993 with regard to pargana Aurangabad Tehsil Mohammadi, District Kheri.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the notification under Section 4-A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were issued in Village Aurangabad on 17.1.1993. In pursuance of the aforesaid notification the said village came under consolidation operations and by means of order dated 20.8.1994 the consolidation committee for the Village Aurangabad was constituted. Further, after completion of the procedure of demarcation of the lands, determination of valuation, a publication under Section 9 of Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued on 13.12.1996. Subsequently, notification under Section 20 of the Act of 1953 and Akar Patra 23 were issued to the tenure holders vide order dated 30.3.1999. According to the petitioners 77 percent of the chaks were demarcated and as per Section 28 possessions had already been delivered as per Akar Patra 23 but the said fact is contested by the State who have vehemently denied that at this stage no possession of the land was given and no date was fixed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for carrying out the demarcation proceedings as per the consolidation scheme and, therefore, the possession of the chaks could not be delivered to the tenure holders. It is at that particular stage that the impugned notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1953 was issued.

5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that for notification of Section 6 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act the procedure has been prescribed under Rule 17 of the Consolidation of Holding Rules 1953. It was stated that the notification under Section 4 can be cancelled in part or for the whole area where one of the grounds as stated in Rule 17 (c) are existing. It was stated that in present case the respondents have invoked the provisions of sub Rule c of Rule 17 for cancellation of the consolidation operations. It is the case of the respondents that the village is torn-up from factionism so as to make the proper consolidation proceedings in the village very difficult.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no material to indicate the existence of factionism in the village so as to render proper 3 WRIB No. 797 of 2002 consolidation proceedings difficult. It was stated that in the said village the authorities conducting the consolidation operations were not adhering to any provision of law and were not making correct valuation of the lands and misconducting themselves with the villagers due to which there was great dissatisfaction amongst the villagers as they started protesting and sitting on dharnas against the consolidation proceedings. It was stated that it is the authorities who were conducting consolidation operations which were the subject of protest by the villagers and it was their clear the consolidation proceedings should recommence accordance with law and to that effect even meeting of Gram Sabha was held where a resolution was passed to this effect while on the other hand, the respondents have ignored the genuine demands of the villages and straightaway proceeded to annul the entire process of consolidation. It is stated that Rule 17 clearly provides for grounds in consideration of which the exercise of jurisdiction for order for cancellation of consolidation operations can be passed but the respondents have not exercised the jurisdiction properly and cancelled the consolidation operations without existence of any of the conditions prescribed under Rule 17 and it is in aforesaid circumstances the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notification dated 6.1.2001.

7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and also produced original records which may indicate existence of differences and factionism with various authorities culminating into issuance of the impugned cancellation of the consolidation operations in exercise of power under Rule 17 (c) of the Rules of 1954. It was stated that exercise for issuance of the notification was undertaken after there was adequate material and information with the State Government with regard to the conditions prescribed under Sub Rule C of Rule 17 of the Act of 1953. It was stated that the reports of Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Additional District Magistrate and District Magistrate were obtained. All the said reports clearly pointed out towards the fact that consolidation operations were not possible in the said village due to party factionism and accordingly the consolidation operations in the said situation would have become very difficult and the only option available to the respondents was to issue notification under 4 WRIB No. 797 of 2002 Section 6 of the Act of 1953 and consequently submitted that there is no infirmity in the exercise of the powers culminating into issuance of the notification under Section 6 thereby supporting the action taken by the respondents.

8. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.

9. A perusal of the records indicates that the entire proceedings had commenced on the basis of the first report which is available on record and has been submitted by Additional District Magistrate to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 3.8.2000. In this report he has recorded that the Land Management Committee had submitted its report on 19.7.2000 from which it was clear that there are certain problems in the conduct of the consolidation operations and the consolidation operations were not conducted fairly and the exercise was clearly discriminatory. It was also submitted that certain officials / officers were not discharging their duties in accordance with law for which they should be punished and the consolidation operations should recommence after re- valuing the lands and if it is not possible then the land should be reverted as it was prior to consolidation operations.

10. It was further recorded that at that relevant point of time the notification under Section 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act has been issued and the Consolidation Officer who has disposed of all the objections raised before him and demarcation proceedings are underway which were likely to be completed and published. He has further recorded that on 17.10.2000 number of villagers have come together and started protesting against the consolidation operations, specially, against the Lekhpal and also there were number of villagers who were protesting and sitting on fast and Settlement Officer of Consolidation himself visited the said village on 19.7.2000 and met all the villagers and has recorded that the protests were mainly against one Rishikant, the Consolidation Lekhpal against whom various complaints were received. In his report he has stated that it is due to aforesaid circumstances that it was not possible to further continue with the consolidation operations.

11. The report was duly considered by the committee and the proposal 5 WRIB No. 797 of 2002 was forwarded for cancellation of the consolidation operations. Further, from the record it is found that there was a resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 19.7.2000 where it was recorded that for last three days there is protest on the spot and around 500 to 600 villagers and agricultural labourers were protesting against the area Lekhpal and consolidation officers were not even ready to listen to their grievances. They have stated that their lands/chaks have been incorrectly measured and even valuations have been fixed at much lower rates and certain lands have been illegally and arbitrarily removed from the consolidation operations. It is in aforesaid circumstances that prayer was also made for re-initiation of the consolidation proceedings in accordance with law. All the aforesaid material was considered and forwarded by the District Magistrate to the Consolidation Commissioner.

12. In the report of the District Magistrate dated 14.12.2000 it is noticed that in a very cursory manner it has been stated that the villagers are against the consolidation operations and there is factionism within the villagers due to which it is not possible to continue with the consolidation operations and, hence, recommendation was made for cancellation of the consolidation proceedings. As per the record, it is on the basis of the recommendations of the District Magistrate that the Consolidation Commissioner vide order dated 15.12.2000 had taken decision to issue notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1953 and the impugned notification has been issued on 6.1.2001.

13. A perusal of the aforesaid material indicates that initially it was correctly recorded by the authorities that it is the conduct of the consolidation officials which had led to the protests by the villagers and the report clearly indicates that the resolution of the gaon sabha unequivocally stated that the conduct of the consolidation operations is absolutely arbitrary and discriminatory and they are not following the provision of law nor are they giving any opportunity of hearing to the villagers. It is in aforesaid circumstances that they had sought annulment of the consolidation operations and also requested the authorities to hold inquiry against all the officials involved in the consolidation operations and to re-initiate the same from the stage of re-starting the consolidation operations after re-valuation of the lands. 6 WRIB No. 797 of 2002

14. Accordingly, from the aforesaid, it is clear that the protest was with regard to the manner in which the consolidation operations were being conducted by the consolidation officers and not against the consolidation operations. There had been a clear disconnection between the villagers and the officials but it seems that the respondents lost sight of the real grievances raised by the villagers but focused only on demand for cancellation of the consolidation operations leading to passing of the impugned order vide order dated 6.1.2001 taking a view that entire material would indicate that the request or prayer made by the villagers was not to only cancel the consolidation proceedings. They lost sight of the fact that the agitation was to rectify the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the officials, especially by the Consolidation Lekhpal against whom various allegations was leveled.

15. At this stage, learned Standing counsel has informed that in light of the complaints action was taken against all the erring officials.

16. From the above material, we find that the report of the District Magistrate dated 14.12.2000 also does not correctly depict the ground reality as mentioned by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in his report or the resolution of the Gram Sabha. From the entire material we do not find any cogent material indicating factionism in the villagers so as to render the consolidation operations difficult or impossible. We find that all the villagers unanimously were agitated against the manner in which the consolidation operations had taken place. We find that there was large scale dissatisfaction against a particular Consolidation Lekhpal and other authorities who were proceeding contrary to the statutory provisions and even grievance of the villagers remained fallen to deaf ears.

17. Accordingly, from the above, material we do not find any cogent evidence indicating existence of the conditions mentioned in sub clause c of Rule 17 pertaining to party factionism in the said village. The report of Settlement officer of Consolidation is silent this behalf but subsequently this aspect of the matter has been developed at the stage of District Magistrate but there is no material available anywhere which may support the findings with regard to the conditions existing in sub clause c of Rule 17 for cancellation of the consolidation proceedings. Accordingly, 7 WRIB No. 797 of 2002 the notification being bereft of the reasons and the conditions of the said clause not existing and accordingly the decision taken was clearly arbitrary and without there being any cogent material available on record and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the notification dated 6.1.2001 is set aside.

18. We have been informed that much time has lapsed since cancellation of the notification and demography of the entire area has drastically changed and the said land has fallen into abadi land and number of other structures have come up. Though we are setting aside the notification under Section c of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1954 due to the fact that the conditions as stated by the respondents are not existing but for further progress of the consolidation operations, let fresh order be passed by the Consolidation Commissioner. It will be open for the respondents to pass fresh orders, if they so chose under Section 6 in accordance with law.

19. In view of the above, the writ petitions stand allowed. August 25, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Ms. Parul Gupta and Ms. Navya Srivastava for the petitioners and Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, as such, they are being decided by this common order.

3. By means of the present writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification dated 6.1.2001 passed by opposite party No.2 who is Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. thereby rescinding the 2 WRIB No. 797 of 2002 notification under Section 4-A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act issued on 17.1.1993 with regard to pargana Aurangabad Tehsil Mohammadi, District Kheri.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the notification under Section 4-A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were issued in Village Aurangabad on 17.1.1993. In pursuance of the aforesaid notification the said village came under consolidation operations and by means of order dated 20.8.1994 the consolidation committee for the Village Aurangabad was constituted. Further, after completion of the procedure of demarcation of the lands, determination of valuation, a publication under Section 9 of Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued on 13.12.1996. Subsequently, notification under Section 20 of the Act of 1953 and Akar Patra 23 were issued to the tenure holders vide order dated 30.3.1999. According to the petitioners 77 percent of the chaks were demarcated and as per Section 28 possessions had already been delivered as per Akar Patra 23 but the said fact is contested by the State who have vehemently denied that at this stage no possession of the land was given and no date was fixed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation for carrying out the demarcation proceedings as per the consolidation scheme and, therefore, the possession of the chaks could not be delivered to the tenure holders. It is at that particular stage that the impugned notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1953 was issued.

5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that for notification of Section 6 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act the procedure has been prescribed under Rule 17 of the Consolidation of Holding Rules 1953. It was stated that the notification under Section 4 can be cancelled in part or for the whole area where one of the grounds as stated in Rule 17 (c) are existing. It was stated that in present case the respondents have invoked the provisions of sub Rule c of Rule 17 for cancellation of the consolidation operations. It is the case of the respondents that the village is torn-up from factionism so as to make the proper consolidation proceedings in the village very difficult.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no material to indicate the existence of factionism in the village so as to render proper 3 WRIB No. 797 of 2002 consolidation proceedings difficult. It was stated that in the said village the authorities conducting the consolidation operations were not adhering to any provision of law and were not making correct valuation of the lands and misconducting themselves with the villagers due to which there was great dissatisfaction amongst the villagers as they started protesting and sitting on dharnas against the consolidation proceedings. It was stated that it is the authorities who were conducting consolidation operations which were the subject of protest by the villagers and it was their clear the consolidation proceedings should recommence accordance with law and to that effect even meeting of Gram Sabha was held where a resolution was passed to this effect while on the other hand, the respondents have ignored the genuine demands of the villages and straightaway proceeded to annul the entire process of consolidation. It is stated that Rule 17 clearly provides for grounds in consideration of which the exercise of jurisdiction for order for cancellation of consolidation operations can be passed but the respondents have not exercised the jurisdiction properly and cancelled the consolidation operations without existence of any of the conditions prescribed under Rule 17 and it is in aforesaid circumstances the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notification dated 6.1.2001.

7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and also produced original records which may indicate existence of differences and factionism with various authorities culminating into issuance of the impugned cancellation of the consolidation operations in exercise of power under Rule 17 (c) of the Rules of 1954. It was stated that exercise for issuance of the notification was undertaken after there was adequate material and information with the State Government with regard to the conditions prescribed under Sub Rule C of Rule 17 of the Act of 1953. It was stated that the reports of Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Additional District Magistrate and District Magistrate were obtained. All the said reports clearly pointed out towards the fact that consolidation operations were not possible in the said village due to party factionism and accordingly the consolidation operations in the said situation would have become very difficult and the only option available to the respondents was to issue notification under 4 WRIB No. 797 of 2002 Section 6 of the Act of 1953 and consequently submitted that there is no infirmity in the exercise of the powers culminating into issuance of the notification under Section 6 thereby supporting the action taken by the respondents.

8. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.

9. A perusal of the records indicates that the entire proceedings had commenced on the basis of the first report which is available on record and has been submitted by Additional District Magistrate to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on 3.8.2000. In this report he has recorded that the Land Management Committee had submitted its report on 19.7.2000 from which it was clear that there are certain problems in the conduct of the consolidation operations and the consolidation operations were not conducted fairly and the exercise was clearly discriminatory. It was also submitted that certain officials / officers were not discharging their duties in accordance with law for which they should be punished and the consolidation operations should recommence after re- valuing the lands and if it is not possible then the land should be reverted as it was prior to consolidation operations.

10. It was further recorded that at that relevant point of time the notification under Section 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act has been issued and the Consolidation Officer who has disposed of all the objections raised before him and demarcation proceedings are underway which were likely to be completed and published. He has further recorded that on 17.10.2000 number of villagers have come together and started protesting against the consolidation operations, specially, against the Lekhpal and also there were number of villagers who were protesting and sitting on fast and Settlement Officer of Consolidation himself visited the said village on 19.7.2000 and met all the villagers and has recorded that the protests were mainly against one Rishikant, the Consolidation Lekhpal against whom various complaints were received. In his report he has stated that it is due to aforesaid circumstances that it was not possible to further continue with the consolidation operations.

11. The report was duly considered by the committee and the proposal 5 WRIB No. 797 of 2002 was forwarded for cancellation of the consolidation operations. Further, from the record it is found that there was a resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 19.7.2000 where it was recorded that for last three days there is protest on the spot and around 500 to 600 villagers and agricultural labourers were protesting against the area Lekhpal and consolidation officers were not even ready to listen to their grievances. They have stated that their lands/chaks have been incorrectly measured and even valuations have been fixed at much lower rates and certain lands have been illegally and arbitrarily removed from the consolidation operations. It is in aforesaid circumstances that prayer was also made for re-initiation of the consolidation proceedings in accordance with law. All the aforesaid material was considered and forwarded by the District Magistrate to the Consolidation Commissioner.

12. In the report of the District Magistrate dated 14.12.2000 it is noticed that in a very cursory manner it has been stated that the villagers are against the consolidation operations and there is factionism within the villagers due to which it is not possible to continue with the consolidation operations and, hence, recommendation was made for cancellation of the consolidation proceedings. As per the record, it is on the basis of the recommendations of the District Magistrate that the Consolidation Commissioner vide order dated 15.12.2000 had taken decision to issue notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1953 and the impugned notification has been issued on 6.1.2001.

13. A perusal of the aforesaid material indicates that initially it was correctly recorded by the authorities that it is the conduct of the consolidation officials which had led to the protests by the villagers and the report clearly indicates that the resolution of the gaon sabha unequivocally stated that the conduct of the consolidation operations is absolutely arbitrary and discriminatory and they are not following the provision of law nor are they giving any opportunity of hearing to the villagers. It is in aforesaid circumstances that they had sought annulment of the consolidation operations and also requested the authorities to hold inquiry against all the officials involved in the consolidation operations and to re-initiate the same from the stage of re-starting the consolidation operations after re-valuation of the lands. 6 WRIB No. 797 of 2002

14. Accordingly, from the aforesaid, it is clear that the protest was with regard to the manner in which the consolidation operations were being conducted by the consolidation officers and not against the consolidation operations. There had been a clear disconnection between the villagers and the officials but it seems that the respondents lost sight of the real grievances raised by the villagers but focused only on demand for cancellation of the consolidation operations leading to passing of the impugned order vide order dated 6.1.2001 taking a view that entire material would indicate that the request or prayer made by the villagers was not to only cancel the consolidation proceedings. They lost sight of the fact that the agitation was to rectify the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the officials, especially by the Consolidation Lekhpal against whom various allegations was leveled.

15. At this stage, learned Standing counsel has informed that in light of the complaints action was taken against all the erring officials.

16. From the above material, we find that the report of the District Magistrate dated 14.12.2000 also does not correctly depict the ground reality as mentioned by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in his report or the resolution of the Gram Sabha. From the entire material we do not find any cogent material indicating factionism in the villagers so as to render the consolidation operations difficult or impossible. We find that all the villagers unanimously were agitated against the manner in which the consolidation operations had taken place. We find that there was large scale dissatisfaction against a particular Consolidation Lekhpal and other authorities who were proceeding contrary to the statutory provisions and even grievance of the villagers remained fallen to deaf ears.

17. Accordingly, from the above, material we do not find any cogent evidence indicating existence of the conditions mentioned in sub clause c of Rule 17 pertaining to party factionism in the said village. The report of Settlement officer of Consolidation is silent this behalf but subsequently this aspect of the matter has been developed at the stage of District Magistrate but there is no material available anywhere which may support the findings with regard to the conditions existing in sub clause c of Rule 17 for cancellation of the consolidation proceedings. Accordingly, 7 WRIB No. 797 of 2002 the notification being bereft of the reasons and the conditions of the said clause not existing and accordingly the decision taken was clearly arbitrary and without there being any cogent material available on record and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the notification dated 6.1.2001 is set aside.

18. We have been informed that much time has lapsed since cancellation of the notification and demography of the entire area has drastically changed and the said land has fallen into abadi land and number of other structures have come up. Though we are setting aside the notification under Section c of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1954 due to the fact that the conditions as stated by the respondents are not existing but for further progress of the consolidation operations, let fresh order be passed by the Consolidation Commissioner. It will be open for the respondents to pass fresh orders, if they so chose under Section 6 in accordance with law.

19. In view of the above, the writ petitions stand allowed. August 25, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench