Girwar Singh v. Director Of Consolidation, U. P. — 1988 DIGILAW 42 (ALL)

JUDGMENT M. P. Singh, J. 1. 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. 2. 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. 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. 4. 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. The counsel for the respondent has urged that though section 4-A mentions, 'it is expedient in the public interest so to do' yet it does not mention that the State Government must record reasons in writing. This case is wholly of no relevance to the controversy in this case. The counsel for the respondent has urged that though section 4-A mentions, 'it is expedient in the public interest so to do' yet it does not mention that the State Government must record reasons in writing. Of course while issuing the Notification under section 4-A the State Government must have satisfied itself that it was in the public interest so to do. He has relied upon a decision of Supreme Court Bagu Barkva Thakur v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 1203 . That was a case under the Land Acquisition Act. In that case the Notification which was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the word 'public purpose' was not mentioned. After considering the matter the Supreme Court held that non-mention of 'public purpose' in the Notification was not fatal. In P. L. Lakhanpal v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 243 , the Supreme Court while deciding the case under the Defence of India Rules took the view that :- "Article 352 of the Constitution requires only a declaration of emergency threatening the security of India by one of the causes mentioned. The power to make the declaration can no doubt be exercised only when the President is satisfied about the emergency but the Article does not require the condition precedent for the exercise of the power i.e. President's satisfaction to be stated in the declaration. 5. Thus non-recording the reasons that it was expedient in the public interest so to do will not render the Notification bad. I hold it is a valid Notification. 6. On behalf of the respondent it has been argued that in the petition the only remedy sought is for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to decide about the illegalities before proceeding with the consolidation operations after providing an opportunity of being heard to the tenure holders and quash Form No. 23 issued without deciding the objections. It was pointed out that no relief for quashing the said Notification under section 4-A has been made. In the absence of this prayer no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The contention raised by the respondent's counsel is well founded and I hold that in the absence of this prayer, the Notification cannot be quashed. It was pointed out that no relief for quashing the said Notification under section 4-A has been made. In the absence of this prayer no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The contention raised by the respondent's counsel is well founded and I hold that in the absence of this prayer, the Notification cannot be quashed. As held by me above, that the Notification under section 4-A of the Act is valid Notification, the consolidation authorities have committed no illegality in proceeding with the consolidation operations 7. Unless the petitioner prays and succeeds in getting the said Notification dated 27-6-1981 quashed, no relief can be granted to him. Moreover, the petitioner is guilty of concealment of material facts and has successfully misled this Court in getting the writ petition admitted without disclosing the fact that he has already contested before the Consolidation Officer and lost the case. This ground alone dis-entitles the petitioner to any relief. The petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. Apart from this fact, on merits also he has failed to make out a case for interference by this Court. 8. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.