SHITLA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, J. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to decide about the il legalities before proceeding with the operations after providing opportunity of being heard to the tenure holders and quash the Form No. 23, issued without deciding the pending objections. 2. Petitioners allegations in the writ petition are that they are the tenure holders in village Saroorpur Khurd in which second time the consolidation operation have been started and for this purpose a notification has been published intheu. P. Ga/. cttcon27-6-1981. Sincethe villagers of the village were not interested in the consolidation operation, as the same was not in the interest of the public as such they approached the higher authorities. It is stated in the writ petition that though the writ petition is being filed by five persons but in fact the writ petition is on behalf of all the villagers and the writ petition is filed in the representative capacity. 3. The plea of the petitioners arc that the village Saroorpur Khurd is a big village but the Assistant Consolidation Officer and Consolidation Officer sit about 15v miles away and are doing everything and it has become difficult for the tenure holders to attend their Court and the request to hold the Court in the village was turned down by the Consolidation Officers. It is further stated in the writ petition that valuation of the plots have been fixed ar bitrarily and the same are entirely different from the earlier consolidation operation in order to give benefit to the few influen tial persons very good land has been valued at lower rates only in order to give ad vantage to the influential persons and similar adjoining plots have been valued half of the rate only in order to give ad vantage to the few influential persons having large holdings. It is stated that the consolidation operation in the village were initially started for the first time m the year 1961 and de-notification under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was also issued in the year 1961 and the consolidation operations became final and before start of the consolidation a notification under Section 4 of the Act as contemplated under the Act was also is sued. Thereafter the consolidation be came final. Petitioners contention is that there is no need to start the consolidation operation, as it will give advantage to some influential persons and the poor farmers will not be benefited at all. The allegations have been made that Hukum Singh, Om Prakash and Bali Ram Pradhan are the big tenure holders and they are being benefited by the giving advantage to them and their area of land has been increased. 4. The petitioners have submitted that notification under Section 4-A of the Act was issued and it was published in the Lucknow Times in the year 1981. Petitioners have stated that more than 50% and nearly 75% villagers are against the consolidation scheme and have made various representations in this connection to various authorities. The entire villagers were aggrieved by the action of the Government and as such, they made repre sentation when the consolidation officer visited their village to start the consolida tion operation. It is further submitted that on the representation made by petitioners the Director of Consolidation issued a let ter to the Settlement Officer Consolida tion and deputed him to visit the spot and gave its report. The petitioners have not been informed as to what has happened upon their representation. It is further submitted that the petitioners have made representations even to the Members of the Parliament and the Ministers wrote letters to the District Magistrate. It is fur ther submitted that the entire proceedings under the consolidation operation are in valid and void. The allegations have also been made regarding the illegal allotment of land for the roads. The allegations have been made against the Deputy Director of Consolidation before whom the revisions were filed by the petitioners against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolida tion and the Deputy Director of Con solidation was in collusion with the high influential persons has refused to stay the operation of the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and rejected the stay application of the petitioners. Other irregularities were also mentioned in the writ petition. The petitioners challenged the notification on a number of grounds but at the initial stage, there was no prayer for quashing the notification rather only the writ of mandamus was claimed and subsequently, the petitions filed amend ment application and claimed the relief of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 27-6- 1981/11-6-1980. The petitioners challenged the notification on a number of grounds but at the initial stage, there was no prayer for quashing the notification rather only the writ of mandamus was claimed and subsequently, the petitions filed amend ment application and claimed the relief of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 27-6- 1981/11-6-1980. There was no objection to this amendment by the State and objection was filed by the contesting respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the amendment was allowed, therefore, the relief for quashing the notification has also been prayed by the petitioners. 5. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the contesting respondents as well as by the learned Standing Counsel. In para 19 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the complaints made by some of the villagers is being inquired by the higher authorities as the then Assistant Consolidation Of ficer Sri Mam Chand has already died in a bus accident and the then Consolidation Officer Sri Chhotey Lal Raghuvanshi has retired. In para 25 of the counter-affidavit, it is slated that the representation of the petitioners is still pending and the present writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Kunwar Pal son of Ratan Singh, the newly added respondent also filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in para 4 of the counter-affidavit that this very notification was challenged by Girwar Singh and others in Writ Petition No. 14261 of 1986, Girwar Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, which is also admitted to the petitioners as stated in para 13 of the writ petition. Il is stated that the said writ peti tion has already been dismissed by the Honble Court and the said judgment is reported in 1988 A. L. J. 478 Girwar Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that similar ground has been taken in this writ petition also. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the aforesaid decision, the Court has held that it was expedient in the public interest, so to do that will not render the notifica tion bad and the Court held that the said notification was a valid notification. In support of the said decision, the Honble Court has placed reliance on AIR I960 SC 1203. In support of the said decision, the Honble Court has placed reliance on AIR I960 SC 1203. It is stated that earlier consolidation proceedings in the village was finalised in the year 1961, therefore, in the year 1981 the second notification was issued after more than ten years in the public interest. Thus there is presumption of satisfaction of the State Government. It is further stated that by amending Section 19 of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act 1986, the period of ten years was changed as period of 20 years under the proviso to Section 4-A of the aforesaid Act. The present notification was issued after amending Section 4 of the U. P. Consolida tion of Land Holdings Act and before the Act of 1981, at that lime the period of ten years was mentioned in Section 4 of the Act. It is further submitted that all the proceedings have almost been completed and in some cases the revisions are pend ing before the Deputy Director of Consolidation but due to slay orders the proceeding of possession over the chaks have holdup of the entire village. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Sri G. N. Verma learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before the Court the notification in question. The notification is quoted below: "sarkarl V1gyapati SAN. 65148/77 RA. JASWA 8, D1nank 11 JUNE 1980 KAY SATH PADHIT UTTAR PRADESH JOT CHAKBANDl ADIUNIYAM 1953 {uttar PIMDESHADHINIYAMSAN. 5 (19581siwjj KE DHAKA 4-KA KE UPDIIARA (2) KAY AD-HEEN ADHIKARON KA PRAYOC KARKAY MAINARENDRA BIHARILAL, CHAKBAN-DI SANCllalak UTTAR PRADESH LUCK-NOW RAJYA SARKAR KE PUR-WA NUMODA N SA YEDD WA RA VIGYA PA TI KARTA HUNKE TEIISIL SARDIIANA 7. 1 LA MEERUT KAY NECHAY DE GAYE ANUSUCHI MAY UPLIK1ut GAON MAY CHAKKANDl KIRYAY PUNAH ARAMlih K1rnayka VINISIICHYKIYA GAYA HAL" 9. He has also placed before the Court. Section. 1 4-A of U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, which has been quoted in para 7 of the writ petition and is also being reproduced below. "4-A (1 ). 1 LA MEERUT KAY NECHAY DE GAYE ANUSUCHI MAY UPLIK1ut GAON MAY CHAKKANDl KIRYAY PUNAH ARAMlih K1rnayka VINISIICHYKIYA GAYA HAL" 9. He has also placed before the Court. Section. 1 4-A of U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, which has been quoted in para 7 of the writ petition and is also being reproduced below. "4-A (1 ). Where the State Government is opinion that in the case of a district or part thereof in respect of which a notification has al ready been issued under Section 52, it is expedient in the public interest so lo do, it may make a declaration by notification in the Gazette that such district or part thereof may again be brought under consolidation operation: Provided that no such declaration shall be issued within ten years from the date of the notification referred to in the said section. (2) The provisions of this Act shall mutatis mutandis apply ;o every notification issued under sub-section 11) as they apply to a notifica tion under Section 4. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that a bare perusal of Section 4-A (l) of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act would show that such provision requires firstly if a notifica tion under Section 52 has already been issued but alter the issuance of such notification under Section 52 the State Government has formed opinion that it is in the public interest that the Consolida tion proceedings be re-started, the State Government any make a declaration in the official Gazette. The submission is that in the present case there is neither special reasons given that the notification has al ready been mad in the public interest nor the State Government has formed any opinion to this effect. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the Chakbandi Sanchalak is en titled under the delegated power to see ingredient of Section 4 must be there. His submission is that when the State Govern ment has itself no jurisdiction to issue notification, which was not in its opinion in the public interest and for the special reason, then its diligence does not possess such power. His submission is that in the notification itself, no special reasons haw been assigned, therefore, notification is bad in law. 11. His submission is that when the State Govern ment has itself no jurisdiction to issue notification, which was not in its opinion in the public interest and for the special reason, then its diligence does not possess such power. His submission is that in the notification itself, no special reasons haw been assigned, therefore, notification is bad in law. 11. Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this very notification was challenged in the earlier writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14261 of 1986, Girwar Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U. P. and others, and the said writ petition was dis missed, therefore, the second writ petition on the same ground cannot be filed. His further submission is that the notification itself has mentioned that "raj SARKAR PUNARMODAN" means that the notification was issued after getting the approval from the State Government. His further submission is that after the notification the consolidation operation is likely to the completed but because of the stay order, whole thing is held up. It is furl her submitted that the word PUNARMODAN has been used in abundant precaution that cannot make the notifica tion illegal and invalid. His further submission is that the notification was made after the U. P. Land Amendment Act. 1976 and 1986on27-6-1981, therefore, the period of 20 years which is applied is not applicable in this case rather the period will be 10 years only is to be seen. 12. Learned Standing Counsel, Sri Sanjeev Singh has submitted that non-recording of the reason in the notification cannot be sufficient to nullify the notifica tion. He has placed before the Court the decision reported in 1977 A. L. J. 512, on the point of interpretation wherein it was held by the Court that power to cancel the notification is that of the State Govern ment as provided under Section 6 of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, therefore, the petitioner cannot gel any relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 13. 13. Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for respondent in support of his conten tion has placed before the Court the case of Girwar Singh (supra) wherein the same notification was challenged and in that writ petition also a writ of mandamus was prayed directing the authorities to decide about the illegalities before proceeding with the matter under the U. P. Consolida tion of Land Holdings Act and also for quashing Form No. 23 issued without deciding the pending objections. From para 7 of the aforesaid judgment it is clear that non-recording of the reasons that it was expedient in the public interest so to do will not render the Notification bad. In para 8 of the judgment it is held that there was no prayer for quashing the notification under Section 4-A of the U. P. Consolida tion of Land Holdings Act, therefore, the Court held that in absence of this prayer no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the notification cannot be quashed. The notification in that writ petition was not quashed as the Court observed in para 10 of the judgment that: "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 conceal ment of material facts and has successfully misled this Court in getting the writ petition admitted without disclosing the he has already contested before the Consolidation Officer and lost the case. This ground alone disentitles 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 made out a case for interference by this Court. " Learned counsel for the petitioner has amended the relief and prayed for the quashing of the same notification which was held to be valid by this Court in the case of Girwar Singh (supra) and the present case is covered by the aforesaid notification and it should be dismissed. Sri G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed in reply to the arguments of Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the respondents that Section 19 of the U. P. Amendment Act, 1954 says that no declaration shall be issued within a period of twenty years. He has placed before the Court the relevant Section, which is quoted below: 19. He has placed before the Court the relevant Section, which is quoted below: 19. Amendment of Section 4-A of U. P. Ac! No. 5 of 1954.-For the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4- A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 195 the following proviso shall be sub stituted, namely: "provided that no such declaration shall be issued within twenty years from I he date of the notification referred to in the said Section, but in special circumstances the State Govern ment may, in public interest, issue such declara tion after ten years from the said date. " 14. The further submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner it that no special circumstances has been men tioned by the Stale Government nor the said notification is in the public interest, therefore, it should be quashed. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no bar anywhere in the Act to issue fresh notifica tion under Section 4 (2) of the Act and it would depend whether a particular village need fresh consolidation or not. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision reported in 1977 (2) A. L. R. 512 (Swami Din and others v. Slate of U. P. and others), where in the Court has held that notifica tion can be issued when there need for fresh notification. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and going through the relevant papers on record, and relevant law on the subject, I am of the view that notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act may be issued by the State Government for consolidation operation. The relevant Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act is quoted above. 4. The relevant Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act is quoted above. 4. Declaration and notification regarding consolidation.- (l) (a) The State Government may, where it is of opinion that a district or part thereof may be brought under consolidation operation, make a declaration to that effect in the Gazette, whereupon it shall become lawful for any officer or authority who may be em powered in this behalf by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation- (i) to enter upon and survey, in connection with rectangulation or otherwise and to take levels of any land in such area; (ii) (to fix pillars in connection with rectangulntion and); (iii) to do all acts necessary to ascertain the suitability of the area for consolidation opera tions. (b) The District Deputy Director of Con solidation shall cause public notice of the decla ration issued under clause (a) to be given at convenient places in the said district or part thereof. (2) (a) When the State Government decides to start consolidation operations, either in an area covered by a declaration issued under sub-section (1) or in any other area, it may issue a notification to this effect. (b) Every such notification shall be pub lished in the Gazette and in a daily newspaper having circulation in the said area and shall also be published in each unit in the said area in such manner as may be considered appropriate. " There was an insertion of a new Sec-tion-4-A. By this section where the State Government lice of opining that in the case of a district or part thereof in respect of which a notification has already been issued under Section 52 of the Act, it is expedient in the public interest so to do, it may make a declaration by notification in the Gazette that such district or part there of may again be brought under consolida tion operation. The relevant Section 4-A of the Act is quoted below: The Section 5 of the U. P. Consolida tion of Land Holdings Act is also quoted below: 5. The relevant Section 4-A of the Act is quoted below: The Section 5 of the U. P. Consolida tion of Land Holdings Act is also quoted below: 5. Effect of [notification under Section 4 (2)].- (1) Upon the publication of the notification (under sub- section (2) of Section 4) in the Official Gazette, the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified thereunder till the publication of notification under Section 52 or sub-section (1) of Section 6, as the case may be, ensue in the area to which the [notification under Section 4 (2)] relates, namely- (a) the district or part thereof, as the case may be. shall be deemed to be under consolidation operations and the duty of maintaining the record-of-rights and preparing the village map. the field book and the annual register of each shall be performed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, who shall maintain or prepare them, as the case may, prescribed: (b) (****) (c) notwithstanding anything contained in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, no tenure-holder, except with the permission in writhing of the Settle ment Officer, Consolidation, previously ob tained shall- (i) use his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, hor ticulture or animal husbandry including pis ciculture and poultry farming; or (ii) (*****) Provided that a tenure-holder may con tinue to use his holding, or any part thereof, for any purpose for which-it was in use prior to the date specified in the notification issued (under sub- section (2) of Section 4 ). (2) Upon the said publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4. (2) Upon the said publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4. the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates namely- (a) every proceedings for the correction of record and every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration of right or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration and adjudica tion or any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any Court or authority whether of first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall on an order being passed in that behalf by (he Court or authority before whom such suit or proceedings is pending stand abated: Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving to the parties notice by post or in any other manner and after giving them an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that on the issued of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 6 in respect of the said area or part thereof, every such order in relation to the land lying in such area or part as the case may be, shall stand vacated; (b) such abatement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the person affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings before the appropriate con solidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.)" Section 6 of the Act deals with the cancel lation of notification under Section 4. Section 6 is also quoted below: "6. Cancellation of notification under Sec tion 4.- (1) It shall be lawful for the State Government at any time to cancel then (notification) made under Section 4 in respect of the whole or any part of the area specified therein. (2) Where a (notification) has been can celled in respect of any writ under sub-section (1), such area shall, subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records, if any passed on or before the date of such cancella tion, ceased to be under consolidation opera tions with effect form the date of the cancella tion.)" 16. A bare perusal of these sections would show that the notification can only he cancelled by the State Government ex ercising powers under Section 6 of the Act. A bare perusal of these sections would show that the notification can only he cancelled by the State Government ex ercising powers under Section 6 of the Act. As stated in the writ petition and also in the counter-affidavit filed by the Stale Government, the petitioners have already filed their representations, which are pending for decision. The present writ petition for issue of a writ of mandamus and for quashing the notification is not maintainable as that the same notification was challenged earlier in this Court in the writ petition filed by Girwar Singh (supra), and this Court held that the notification was valid and further observed that if the petitioner had not pressed for quashing of the notification, it cannot be quashed and the writ petition was dismissed but in the instant case, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus mainly on the ground which was the ground in the earlier writ petition and indeed the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing the notifica tion but the notification cannot be quashed when it has been held valid in the earlier decision of this Court. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.