Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 173 (ALL)

RAMESH CHANDRA v. STATE OF U P

2009-01-20

PRAKASH KRISHNA

body2009
PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. In all the above writ petitions, a common question of law is involved. In these writ peti tions/quashing of notification issued under section 6 of the U. P. C. H. Act has been sought for. The writ petition (PIL) No. 47304 of 2005 is the leading case. The ar guments were heard in the said writ peti tion. . . 2. The writ petition No. 10070 of 2006 is with respect to the notification is sued under section 6 of the Act relating to villages Bachgaon, Bhidarwa, Julendhi & Sakha, Pargana, Tehsil & District Mathura dated 21. 7. 2005. 3. Writ petition No. 57395 of 2008, relates to the village Kuchesar, Pargana and Tehsil Siyana, District Bulandshahar which was notified for consolidation proceedings under section 4 of the Act. The Consolida tion Commissioner by the order dated 25th July, 2008 impugned in the present writ petition has dismissed the representation of the petitioners to keep the village outside the purview of the consolidation operation. The quashing of the said order has been sought for. 4. The writ petition No. 58410 of 2008 is in respect of notification dated 25th October, 2007 issued by the Consolidation Commissioner, U. P. Lucknow under sec tion 6 of the U. P. C. H. Act cancelling the notification dated 10th October, 1992 issued under section 4 of the Act. Quashing of the notification issued under section 6 of the Act has been sought for in this petition. 5. In all these petitions common question of law as to whether a writ can be issued quashing the notifications issued under sections 4 or 6 of the Act, is involved. 6. The writ petition No. 47304 of 2005 is the leading case and it is necessary to notice the facts from the said writ peti tion. 7. The petitioners who are eight in numbers have preferred this writ petition titled as PIL for quashing the notification issued under section 6 of the U. P. Consoli dation of Holdings Act dated 24th of March, 2005 issued by the respondent No. 2 and have sought a writ of Mandamus com manding the respondents not to enforce the impugned notification against the petition ers and other inhabitants/agricul-turists of village Gharbara, Pargana Tappal, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh on any ground and in any manner whatsoever. 8. The facts of the case may be no ticed in brief. 8. The facts of the case may be no ticed in brief. The petitioners claiming that the present writ petition is for welfare of inhabitants and agriculturists of village Gharbara, Pargana Tappal, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh, have challenged the valid ity of the notification issued under section 6 of the Act whereby the earlier notification issued under section 4 of the Act dated 21st of September, 1995 has been withdrawn. 9. In the writ petition, besides im-pleading the State of U. P. , the Consolidation Commissioner and Collector, Aligarh, the petitioners have impleaded Dr. Smt. Gyanwati, President, Mahila Kalyan Ni-gam, Aligarh and Shri Ajit Singh son of Late Chaudhari Charan Singh, Member Parliament and National President of In dian Lok Dal, New Delhi as respondents. It has been pleaded that consolidation opera tion was going on peacefully in the village Gharbara. Certain influential persons (Bhoo Mafias) pressurized the Consolidation Authorities to manipulate cancellation of consolidation proceedings in the village. One writ petition No. 35709 of 2003 was filed by one Daya Ram for cancellation of the consolidation proceedings, which was decided by this Court on 16th of April, 2004. The Court disposed off the writ peti tion and while doing so it has been found that no ground for quashing the notifica tion under section 4 (2) of the Consolida tion of Holdings Act is made out. It, how ever, permitted the petitioners therein to make a representation before the Consoli dation Commissioner, U. P. , Lucknow in respect of the aforesaid grievances. The Consolidation Commissioner as per the allegations made in the present writ peti tion has issued the impugned notification dated 24 of March, 2005 under section 6 of the Act cancelling the earlier notification arbitrarily and under the influence of the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It has been further stated that the impugned no tification has been issued in pursuance of the letter of Smt. Gyanwati who happens to be daughter of late Chaudhary Charan Singh and sister of Shri Ajit Singh (M. P. ). The Tehsildar in his report dated 28th of August, 2004 somehow manipulated issu ance of impugned notification. Similarly, the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Col lector, Aligarh recommenced for issuance of the impugned notification and the Con solidation Commissioner, consequently, issued the impugned notification which, according to the petitioners, is manifestly erroneous in law, arbitrary, discriminatory, perverse and without jurisdiction. The Tehsildar in his report dated 28th of August, 2004 somehow manipulated issu ance of impugned notification. Similarly, the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Col lector, Aligarh recommenced for issuance of the impugned notification and the Con solidation Commissioner, consequently, issued the impugned notification which, according to the petitioners, is manifestly erroneous in law, arbitrary, discriminatory, perverse and without jurisdiction. It has railed to take into consideration the report of the consolidation authorities dated 4th of August, 2004, 5th of August, 2004, 24th of August, 2004 and 28th of August, 2004; the ingredients of section 6 of the Act were not fulfilled before issuance of the impugned notification. The consolidation operation had started in pursuance of the notification dated 21st of September, 1995 and the alle gation with regard to the alluvial and deluvial action in the villages as well as their location near bordering villages of Haryana, are wholly incorrect. Boundary dis pute between the State of U. P. and State of Haryana had already been settled by the department of Survey of India and the Dixit Award referred to in the report of the Collector dated 11th February, 2005. 10. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 3 controverting the al legations made in the writ petition has been filed by the Consolidation Officer wherein the allegation that the impugned notifica tion was issued on extraneous considera tion, has been denied. The receipt of letter of Smt. Gyanwati in the Consolidation Of fice is accepted, but no action was taken in pursuance of the said letter, it has been stated. The impugned notification has been sought to be justified on the basis of the reports of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 4th of August, 2004, of Upziladhikari dated 4th of January, 2005 and that of the Collector dated 11th February, 2005. The Consolidation Commissioner has issued the impugned notification in pursuance of the aforestated reports of the Officers con cerned. It has been further stated that Naib-Tehsildar, Khair in his report dated 28th December, 2004 submitted that there is no need of consolidation operation in the vil lage. 11. The Consolidation Commissioner has issued the impugned notification in pursuance of the aforestated reports of the Officers con cerned. It has been further stated that Naib-Tehsildar, Khair in his report dated 28th December, 2004 submitted that there is no need of consolidation operation in the vil lage. 11. In paragraph 6 of the counter affi davit it has been stated that River Yamuna is flowing through nearby villages and there is still boundary dispute in between the States of U. P. and Haryana and as such, it would not be in the interest of the villag ers to carry out the consolidation operation in the village. The impugned notification has been issued in valid exercise of power conferred on the authority concerned. In paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that although the Survey of India demarcated the boundary line in between the States of U. P. and Haryana in the map and also on the spot but presently on the spot the pillars are not in existence. The total area of the village Gharbara is 2,374. 96 hectares, out of which land is 1958. 78 hectares. 12. Another counter affidavit has been filed by one Jag Veer Singh who is not impleaded as one of the respondents in the writ petition but has applied for his im-pleadment as respondent No. 6. It has been stated that the total area of the village Gharbara was 52, 000 bighas and after the Dixit Award about 6, 000 bighas were in cluded in the State of Haryana. During the rainy season River Yamuna overflows and entire village Gharbara is flooded with water. The most of land due to flood has become barren and its valuation has been reduced from 90 paise to 10 paise. The ten ure holders of village Gharbara had moved an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khair to stay the consolidation proceedings and denotify the village. On the said application a report from the Tehsildar was called for. It has been further stated that the present writ petition could not have been treated as PIL and no pres sure was exercised on the Consolidation Commissioner to issue the impugned noti fication. The contention that the impugned notification has been issued on extraneous considerations, has been denied and it has been submitted that the said notification has been issued on correct facts. The contention that the impugned notification has been issued on extraneous considerations, has been denied and it has been submitted that the said notification has been issued on correct facts. The re ports of the Naib Tehsildari, Sub Divisional Magistrate and Additional District Magis trate, Aligarh contain correct facts. The Consolidation Commissioner issued the impugned notification after taking into ac count the majority opinion of the agricul turists and inhabitants of village Gharbara. 13. Rejoinder affidavits have been filed reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition. 14. Shri B. B. Paul, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the im pugned notification is liable to be quashed on the ground that it has been issued by the Consolidation Commissioner at the dictate of private respondents No. 4 and 5. Elabo rating, the argument, it was submitted that the writ petition filed earlier, was dis missed by this Court and as such, it was not open to the Consolidation Commis sioner to undo the judgment of this Court by issuing the denotification under section 6 of the Act. He submits that the impugned notification has been issued at the instance 4 of certain influential persons who are none else but Bhoo Mafias i. e. the land grabbers. This Court can judge the validity of the no tification on the touch-stone of section 6 and Rule 17 as framed under the Act. Shri B. D. Mandhyan, learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the proposed re spondent No. 6 submits that in Division Bench judgment in Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate, Ltd. v. State of U. P. , 1976 RD 35 it has been held that a writ petition challenging the validity of notification issued under section 6 of the Act is not maintainable as the noti fication issued under the said section is legislative act and not an administrative act. On merit, he submits that on the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the impugned notification has been issued on extraneous considerations. The reports of the high officials, such as that of Collec tor, Sub Divisional Magistrate etc. have been taken into consideration by the authority concerned before issuance of the impugned notification. The allegation that the applicant for impleadment or other persons are influential persons or land grabbers, is totally baseless, there being no material on the record. The reports of the high officials, such as that of Collec tor, Sub Divisional Magistrate etc. have been taken into consideration by the authority concerned before issuance of the impugned notification. The allegation that the applicant for impleadment or other persons are influential persons or land grabbers, is totally baseless, there being no material on the record. On the other hand, the petitioners are land grabbers. The learned Standing Counsel also supports the impugned notification and submits that in view of the authoritative pronouncements by this Court in the aforestated decision of Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate, Ltd. (supra), the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. Considered the respective sub missions of-the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. The U. P. Consolidation of Hold ings Act, 1953 has been passed in connec tion with the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for development of agriculture. After the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Re forms Act, 1950 there was a pressing de mand for the consolidation of holdings in the State, as mentioned in the statement of objects and reasons of the Act. "consolidation" means rearrangement of holdings in a unit among several tenure holders in such a way to make their respective holdings more compact vide section 3 (2) of the Act. "consolidation Scheme" means the scheme of consolidation in a unit as provided in (3-B) of section 3 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides the declaration and notification re garding the consolidation. This section lays down that the State Government on being of the opin ion that a district or part thereof may be brought under the consoli dation operation, shall make a declaration to this effect. The pub lication of this declaration empow ers the officer or authority of the consolidation scheme to enter upon and survey and take levels of the land. The officer or authority will thereupon fix pillars in connection with the rectangulation or other wise and will do any other act for ascertaining the suitability of the area for consolidation operations. The validity of section 4 to 9-A and 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been upheld by this Court in Shyam Sunder and oth ers v. Siya Ram and another, 1973 RD 88 = AIR 1973 Alld. 382. The validity of section 4 to 9-A and 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been upheld by this Court in Shyam Sunder and oth ers v. Siya Ram and another, 1973 RD 88 = AIR 1973 Alld. 382. The publication of the declaration has been held to be mandatory in Tajammul Husain v. A. C. O. Jalalabad, 1959 ALJ 209. 17. Coming to the facts of the present case, it may be noticed that the declaration under section 4 of the Act was published on September 21,1995. It is also not in dis pute mat the villages in question are situate near Yamuna River and are subject to flood during rainy season. According to the con testing respondents there is a State bound ary dispute between the State of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana which according to the petitioners has been settled by Dixit Award. None of the parties has placed on record the said Dixit Award or any other material about existence or settlement of such dispute in the present writ petition, at least. 18. The main thrust of the submission of Shri B. B. Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that notification/declaration issued under section 6 cancelling the earlier notification/declaration issued under sec tion 4 of the Act is without application of mind and malafide. The Consolidation Commissioner has issued the impugned notification ignoring the fact that the in gredients of Rule 17 are not fulfilled. 19. It is desirable to consider the alle gations of malafide as pleaded in the writ petition against the respondents, particu larly the respondents No. 4 and 5 first. In para 6 of the writ petition it has been stated that Smt. Gyanwati, the President of Mahila Kalyan Nigam, sister of Ajit Singh, M. P. and National President of Indian Lok Dal, New Delhi wrote a letter to the Con solidation Commissioner to cancel the notification. The existence of the said letter has not been disputed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3. It has been stated that no action in pur suance of the said letter was taken The im pugned notification has been issued on the basis of the reports submitted by the high officials, such as Collector, Aligarh, S. D. M. Khair etc. It has been stated that no action in pur suance of the said letter was taken The im pugned notification has been issued on the basis of the reports submitted by the high officials, such as Collector, Aligarh, S. D. M. Khair etc. No malafide intention can be im puted merely on the ground that the re spondent No. 4 wrote a letter to the Con solidation Commissioner. It is not the case of the petitioners that the contents of the said letter are irrelevant or in any manner are incorrect. She being the representative of the public and had been M. L. A for five years, has done no wrong if she has brought to the notice of the Consolidation Commissioner the grievances of the public in general. Being representative of the pub lic, she has acted bonafidely, what is to say malafidely by placing the grievances of public before the Consolidation Commis sioner through the letter. Except writing the letter, she has done nothing and I do not see how the said conduct of the respondent No. 4 is blameworthy. Nothing was done by her for personal gains or for illegal gains to her relatives, associates or to anybody. That appears to be the reason why no no tice of the writ petition inviting comments from her was issued by this Court while granting the interim relief on 6th of July, 2005. At no stage, notices were issued to either of the private respondents No. 4 and 5. Except the allegations made in para 6 of the writ petition which has been sworn on record, there appears to be no other allega tion against her. At least, none else was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of the argu ment. Similarly, there appears to be no al legation against the respondent No. 6 in the entire writ petition. The allegations of malafide, thus, are vague and unfounded and are liable to be ignored. The other as pect of the case is that there were two views of the authorities with regard to the continuance/denotification of the village for consolidation operation. Report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Con solidation Officer, Aligarh dated 5th of August, 2004 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition), report of the Consolidation Officer dated 13th August, 2004 (Annexure-5), re port of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 24. Report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Con solidation Officer, Aligarh dated 5th of August, 2004 (Annexure -3 to the writ petition), report of the Consolidation Officer dated 13th August, 2004 (Annexure-5), re port of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 24. 5. 2004 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) are to the effect that the consoli dation operation in the village should be continued. On the other hand, the reports of the Naib Tehsiidar dated 28th December, 2004, of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 4th January, 2004, of Additional Dis trict Magistrate (Admn.) dated 10th Febru ary, 2005 and of the District Magistrate dated 11th February, 2005 are to the effect that in the larger public interest, the village Gharbara be denotified under section 6 (1) of the Act. The Consolidation Commis sioner taking into consideration these re ports has issued the impugned notifica tion/declaration under section 6 of the Act, cancelling the notification issued under section 4 of the Act. Taking one view of the matter by the Consolidation Commissioner, cannot be termed as arbitrary or malafide on the facts of the present case. He was re quired to take a decision in this regard by this Court under the order dated 16th of April, 2004 delivered in the writ petition No. 35709 of 2000. 20. Taking into consideration the en tire facts and circumstances of the case, the plea of malafide pressed by the petitioners is Jt devoid of substance and is therefore, re jected. 21. Now, before considering the other aspects of the writ petition, its maintainability at the instance of the petitioners may be considered. The present writ petition has been filed by eight persons. They have been shown residents of Raipur, Mohalla Gharbara, Pargana Tappal, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh. In paragraph 1 of the writ petition which is reproduced below, only this much, regarding their interest or locus in the matter has been stated:- "that this is the first (P. I. L.) writ peti tion for welfare of inhabitants and agriculturists of village Gharbara, Pargana Tappal, Tehsil Khair, Dis trict Aligarh for quashing of notifi cation, under section 6 of U. P. C. H. Act dated 24. 3. 2005 in respect of village Gharbara, Pargana Tappal, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh (Annexure - ) and proceeding following the same. " 22. 3. 2005 in respect of village Gharbara, Pargana Tappal, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh (Annexure - ) and proceeding following the same. " 22. A bare perusal of the said para graph would show that the present writ petition has been styled as P. I. L. (Public Interest Litigation) for welfare of inhabi tants and agriculturists of the village in question. None of the petitioners have averred anywhere in the writ petition that they are agriculturists or have any piece of the land in village in question. In other words, none of the villagers who could have any grievance have come forward to challenge the notification/declaration is sued under section 6 of the Act. The peti tioners in my considered view have no in terest or locus standi in the matter. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of material particulars relat ing to the interest of the petitioners in the present dispute. It is not the case of the petitioners that the inhabitants and agricul turists of the village in question are so poor that they cannot approach the Court for redressal of their grievance, if any. Appar ently, the present litigation is not a bonafide one. 23. Coming to the merit of the case, the contention of the petitioners is that while issuing the notification under section 6 of the Act, the Consolidation Commission has ignored Rule 17 of the U. P. CH. Rules, 1954. The said Rule reads as fol lows:- "17. Section 6.-The notification (subs tituted for the word "declaration" by Notification No. 437-CH/i-E- 256-61 dated March 25, 1964) made under section 4 of the Act, may among other reasons, be cancelled in respect of the whole or any part of the area on one or more of the following grounds, viz. The said Rule reads as fol lows:- "17. Section 6.-The notification (subs tituted for the word "declaration" by Notification No. 437-CH/i-E- 256-61 dated March 25, 1964) made under section 4 of the Act, may among other reasons, be cancelled in respect of the whole or any part of the area on one or more of the following grounds, viz. that - (a) the area is under a development scheme of such a nature as when completed would render the con solidation operations inequitable to a section of the peasantry; (b) the holdings of the village are al ready consolidated for one reason or the other and the tenure- holders are generally satisfied with the pre sent position; (c) the village is so torn up by party factions as to render proper con solidation proceedings in the vil lage very difficult; (d) a co-operative society has been formed for carrying out cultivation in the area after pooling all the land of the area for this purpose. " 24. It provides grounds for cancelling the notification issued under section 4 of the Act in respect of whole or part or any part of the area. A bare perusal of the said Rule would show that the said Rule does not provide an exhaustive list of the grounds for cancellation of the notification issued under section 4 of the Act inasmuch as it uses the words "among other rea sons". Meaning thereby the grounds men tioned under the said Rule are only illus trative and not exhaustive. 25. The Agricultural & Industrial Syn dicate, Ltd. (supra) is a Division Bench authority of this Court wherein it has been held that where the State Government is sues a notification under section 6, it does not exercise any executive power. It has also been held that when the Director of Consolidation issues a notification under section 4 or 6 of the Act, he performs nei ther the quasi judicial function nor exercises any administrative power, but performs a legislative function. To judge the validity of the notification, the Court must apply the same tests as would apply to a piece of legislation. It has been held that it is not at all required to accord reason or afford an opportunity of hearing to the tenure hold ers concerned by the Consolidation Com missioner before issuing a notification un der section 6 of the Act. It has been held that it is not at all required to accord reason or afford an opportunity of hearing to the tenure hold ers concerned by the Consolidation Com missioner before issuing a notification un der section 6 of the Act. The exercise of powers under sections 4 and 6 of the Act by the State Government is a conditional legis lative power and it cannot be conceivably contended that She High Court can issue a Mandamus to the legislature to legislate on any subject or to apply any law to any area. The High Court cannot pass an order making it obligatory on the State Govern ment to enforce the scheme of consolida tion in an area where in its opinion such scheme should not be enforced. It would amount to compel the State Government to exercise its power of conditional legislation. The aforesaid judgement of the Division Bench when was pointed out to the peti tioners counsel, was sought to be distin guished and in reply strong reliance was placed on the following few judgments of the Honble Single Judge:- 1. Jivxm Singh v. State of U. P. , 1984 RD 110 2. Jagpal Singh v. D. D. C. , 2000 RD 30 3. Usman Gani v. State of U. P. , 2001 (92) RD 611 (HC) 4. Smt. Saroj v. State of U. P. , 2004 RD 454 5. Suraj Bhan v. D. C. , 2006 (101) RD 226 (HC ). 6. Tanseem Bano v. State of U. P. , 2007 (1) ADJ 630 26. Further reliance was placed on State of Bihar v. Kishan Singh, 2007 (1) ADJ 630 and M/s. Devi Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1895 etc. for the proposi tion that where there is violation of guide lines, abuse and misuse of executive dele gated power, action can be challenged be fore Court. 27. The decision given in the case of Jeevan Singh v. State of U. P. (supra), is the star case of the petitioners and therefore, it is desirable to examine the facts of the said case with some detail. In this case, the Honble Single Judge has distinguished the ratio of Division Bench decision in the case of Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate, Ltd. (supra ). In this case, the Honble Single Judge has distinguished the ratio of Division Bench decision in the case of Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate, Ltd. (supra ). The facts of that case would show that in that case the proceedings under the Act were taken, records were verified, valuation of each plot of tenure holder was fixed, objections under section 9 of the Act were decided, the Chaks were carved out and finally allotted to different Chak hold ers on 6th of October, 1967 and thereafter, the possession was also delivered to Chak holders on 17th of May, 1968. The Court took the view that the records of the rights were finalized under the provisions of the Act and new rights have been accrued to-the respective tenure holders in connection with their new Chaks. Nothing remained to be decided under, the 0 provisions of the Act and the notification under section 52 of the Act was a mere formality. On this factual background of the case the Court after taking into consideration the pronounce ments of the Apex Court, has held that the right conferred on tenure holder under section 30 of the Act is not dependent on the notification under section 52 of the Act and therefore, section 6 of the Act has to be interpreted in the way as not to take away the rights which have been conferred on the tenure holders under section 30 of the Act. It took the view that section 6 of the Act does not mention any thing about that new rights conferred on the new Chak holders and is confined only up to the cor rection of the land records. On this factual background and the legal position, it was held therein that the ratio laid down in Ag ricultural & Industrial Syndicate, Ltd. (supra) has no application to the facts of that case. The relevant portion is reproduced be low:- "the pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court lead to the conclusion that if the records of land rights have been finalised under the provisions of the Act and new rights have been accrued to the respective tenure-holders in their new Chaks. Nothing remains to be decided under the provisions of the Act and notification under section 52 of the Act remains a formal act. Nothing remains to be decided under the provisions of the Act and notification under section 52 of the Act remains a formal act. The postponement of issuance of notification under section 52 of the Act for any period how soever long it may be, has got no effect on the title acquired by the tenure-holders in their new Chaks under section 30 of the Act. Ten ure-holder, are free to deal with the land in any manner according to law. The rights conferred on the tenure-holders under section 30 of the Act is not dependent on the notification under section 52 of the Act and, therefore. Section 6 of the Act has to be interpreted in the way as not to take away the rights which have been conferred on the tenure-holders under section 30 of the Act. It is significant to note that there is no specific mention of sec tion 52 of the Act in section 6 of the Act leads to the conclusion that sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act puts a limit on issuance of no tification under section 6 (1) of the Act at any time. Section 6 (2) of the Act definitely provides that notifi cation under sub-section (1) of sec tion 6 of the Act shall be subject to final orders relating to correction of land records meaning thereby that the notification could be issued be fore the finalisation of the new rec ords of land and new map and con ferment of new rights under sec tion 30 of the Act in favour of the tenure-holders in respect of their Chaks. According to section 30 of the Act tenure-holders rights in their original holdings disappeared and they got the same rights, title and interest in their Chaks allotted in the consolidation of holdings operations. Therefore, section 6 of the Act does not mention anything about the new rights conferred on the new Chak-holders and is con fined only upto the correction of land records. Therefore, section 6 of the Act does not mention anything about the new rights conferred on the new Chak-holders and is con fined only upto the correction of land records. Therefore, the deci sion relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents re ported in Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate, Ltd. (supra) has no appli cation to the facts of the present case as in that case notification un der section 6 of the Act was issued before the consolidation records and not after the conferment of the new rights on the tenure-holders under section 30 of the Act. " 28. It has also noticed that the appeals and revisions filed by the tenure-holders were all disposed off and Chaks were carved out in the village and finally allot ted. Such is not the position in the case on hand. It was submitted that the consolida tion operation is being carried on in the village in question on 1 account of the stay order passed by this Court on 6th of July, 2005 in the present writ petition. The said fact was hotly disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. They submit ted that the consolidation operation is wholly at its primary stage and no adjudi cation till date has taken place. Be that as it may, there appears to be no material in support of the respective pleas. However, it can be concluded that at any rate the rights of the parties have not been decided finally by the consolidation authorities. Had it been so the petitioners would have been in a position to place relevant records before this Court. There is no material on record to show even remotely that the rights of the tenure- holders have been adjudicated upon or appeals and revisions filed by the ten ure-holders have been disposed off. In ab sence of any such material, the inference can be drawn that the consolidation opera tion even if is in existence due to interim order passed by this Court, is in its infancy stage. There is no whisper in the writ peti tion nor was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the rights of the ten ure-holders have been finally determined and issuance of a notification under section 52 of the Act is only required to be done. There is no whisper in the writ peti tion nor was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the rights of the ten ure-holders have been finally determined and issuance of a notification under section 52 of the Act is only required to be done. This being so, the ratio laid down in the case of Jiwan Singh v. State of U. P. (supra) has no application to the facts of the pres ent case; the observations made therein should be understood in the context and the factual background as they exist therein. 29. In Ashwani Kumar v. U. P. Public Services Commission, AIR 2003 SC 2661 (14) the following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have come locus classicus:- "each Case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between, one case and another is not enough be cause even a single significant de tail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad re semblance to another case is not all decisive. " 30. In fagpal Singh v. D. D. C. (supra) it has been held that notification issued under section 6 of the Act, can be cancelled by the State Government only and the writ peti tion was held to be non maintainable. 31. The reliance placed by the peti tioners on Usman Cani v. State of U. P. (supra) is misplaced one. It has been held therein that a writ of Mandamus can be is sued only in those cases where the authori ties are under legal obligation to perform statutory duty, but on the representation they failed to perform the same. Mere filing of representation is not sufficient to issue a writ of Mandamus unless it is further dem onstrated that their action is demeanor. 2 32. In the other decision delivered in Smt. Saroj v. State of U. P. (supra) attention of the Honble Single judge was not brought to the Division Bench decision in Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate, Ltd. (supra ). Therefore, the said judgment of the Honble Single Judge should be read sub ject to already existing law as laid down earlier by the aforestated Division Bench. Therefore, the said judgment of the Honble Single Judge should be read sub ject to already existing law as laid down earlier by the aforestated Division Bench. Moreover, the decision was rendered taking into consideration the factual aspects of the case rather the legal principle deline ated under section 6 of the Act, which is apparent from the paragraphs - 6 and 7 of the report. 33. The decision delivered in Suraj Bhan v. D. C. (supra) although supports the contention of the petitioners but in view of the Division Bench decision in the case of Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate, Ltd. (supra) holding otherwise, the decision of Division Bench should be given preference and in my considered view no such writ petition can be issued. The said view is further fortified by the decisions given in Deo Nath Kewat v. DDC, 1990 RD 117 Neelam Chaudhary v. State of U. P. , 1999 RD 400 and Sazid and others v. Commissioner of Consolidation, 1999 RD 468. 34. Viewed as above, the preponder ance of judicial opinion is that in such matters the writ as claimed by the petition ers for quashing the notification issued un der section 6 of the Act, cannot be issued. It is not necessary for me to discuss the other cases referred by the learned Counsel for the parties being besides the issue in volved. 35. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed. 36. In the result, all the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. Petitions Dismissed. .