Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1039 (ALL)

Makru Yadav v. State of U. P.

2014-03-31

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. This writ petition seeks quashing of notification no. 280/I-14-2011-71/01(01)/79 dated 23rd August, 2012 issued in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act 1904 partially modifying notification no. 71/(I)/Bando 79/11/79 dated 19.1.1984. It cancels survey and record operations regarding village Manjha Baretha, Pargana Haveli Awadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad in compliance with the orders of the High Court dated 16.08.2007 passed in writ petition no. 32 of 2006 which provided that the consolidation proceedings in the said village be completed within five years. 2. This petition pertains to village Manjha Baretha (wrongly mentioned as Manjha Barehara in the impugned notification) which has been the subject matter of several writ petitions filed earlier regarding notifications issued under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and it is appropriate to enumerate the sequence of events chronologically so as to fully appreciate the controversy involved in this petition. (i) By notification no. 71(1)-Settlement 19.1.70 19.2.84 the village Manjha Baretha was brought under record and survey operations. This notification was issued in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Subsequently a notification no. 73/G-40/54/80 was issued under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 10.2.2000 and thereby the village in question was brought under consolidation operations also. Consequent to this notification two writ petitions were filed before this Court. The first writ petition, numbered 877 of 2002, was filed by Mahant Jagdish Das Shastri and the second, being writ petition no. 955 of 2002, filed by Laxman Prasad. Both these writ petitions were filed for quashing the notification dated 10.02.2000 issued under Section 4(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act on the ground, inter alia, that the village Manjha Baretha lies within the municipal limits of Faizabad; the village lies on the river bed of the river Ghagra, also referred to as Manjha, and, therefore, could not be brought under consolidation operations in view of the Section 3(2) and the explanations (ii), (iii) and (iv) thereto; the land was subject to fluvial action and intensive soil erosion, besides being subject to prolonged water logging and, lastly, that the land of the village in question could not be included in a consolidation area since Zamindari had not been abolished. Upon a consideration of the grounds taken in the writ petitions, the same were disposed of by the order dated 19.11.2002 giving liberty to the petitioners therein to represent their case before the Secretary, Revenue and the District Deputy Director of Consolidation who were required to consider the same after holding a reasonable enquiry and thereafter take a decision, by a reasoned order within the period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order and for this purposes the consolidation operations were stayed for a period of two weeks. (ii) It appears that in pursuance of the order dated 19.11.2002, an application was filed before the District Magistrate/ District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad, who on 10.3.2003 wrote a letter no. 147 (Consolidation) Manjha Baretha to the Chief Secretary Revenue, Lucknow stating therein that the survey and record operations were continuing in the village in question since 1984 and without closing the said survey and record operations the notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act dated 10.2.2000 had been issued due to which legal complications and difficulties were liable to arise and therefore appropriate directions were required to be issued by the State Government in this regard. (iii) It further appears that in pursuance of the letter aforesaid, a notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued on 28.9.2005 cancelling the notification dated 06.01.2001 as regards village Manjha Baretha, Although in the notification, no reasons were assigned, however, it is clear that a copy of the notification has been forwarded to the District Magistrate/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad referring to his letter dated 10.3.2003 aforesaid. This notification under Section 6(1) was numbered as 4704 (1)/G-40/54-80. (iv) The aforesaid notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was challenged by means of writ petition no. 32 (Cons.) of 2006. This notification under Section 6(1) was numbered as 4704 (1)/G-40/54-80. (iv) The aforesaid notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was challenged by means of writ petition no. 32 (Cons.) of 2006. This writ petition was filed by 23 residents of village Manjha Baretha on the ground that the impugned notification under Section 6(1) had been issued by the Consolidation Commissioner without prior approval of the Secretary Revenue; it contained no reasons; no contingencies provided under Rule 17 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules were enumerated in the impugned notification; none of the grounds mentioned in the Rule 17 exist; in the absence of reasons, the notification had been issued without application of mind and lastly that there was no legal hurdle in starting consolidation operations during the currency of Survey and record operations initiated under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 3. A counter affidavit was filed in this writ petition on behalf of the State on 21.02.2006. Paragraphs 4 and 6 of this counter affidavit are relevant. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it was stated that the representation made in pursuance of this judgment and order in writ petition nos. 877 of 2002 and 955 of 2002, was considered, At the time of hearing of the said representation, the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Manjha Baretha, Smt. Vimla Devi has produced a resolution of Gaon Sabha dated 17.11.2002 wherin it had been resolved that the village be excluded from consolidation operations and that the allegation in the writ petition that this prayer was made only on behalf of Mahant Jagdish Das Shastri was not correct. 4. In paragraph 6, it was averred that the village could not be brought under consolidation operations without closing the record and survey operations which were going on in pursuance of the notification under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act issued in 1984 and therefore it was recommended that the notification under Section 6 of the Act be issued and in case consolidation operations were required to be continued, it would be appropriate to take a decision regarding issuance of another notification under Section 48 of the Land Revenue Act closing the survey and record operations. 5. The writ petition no. 5. The writ petition no. 32 of 2006 was allowed by the judgment and order dated 16.8.2007 and the notification dated 28.9.2005 was quashed on the grounds that there was plausible reason assigned for issuance of the said notification under Section 6 (1) the same appears to have been obtained by "adroit maneuvering of few dissenting people". There must be some valid reasons as enumerated under Rule 17 for issuing the notification under Section 6 (1) and in any case, at least some reasons should have been given by the State by means of a counter affidavit but this was not done and therefore two findings were recorded. The first, namely, that unit was not torn by the village politics and the notification was not covered by Rule 17-C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. 6. From a perusal of the judgment dated 16.08.2007, it is abundantly clear that the two crucial aspects relevant in the said petition as pointed out by the averments made in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State referred to above were neither considered nor even referred to. In fact, the reasoning that the notification under Section 6(1) had been passed on account of "adroit maneuvering of few dissenting people" could not have been assigned without considering or referring to the avements made in the paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit which spoke of a resolution of the Gaon Sabha having been filed in the matter. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.08.2007, Mahant Jagdish Das Shastri filed a review petition no. 230 of 2008 on 18.10.2008. During pendency of the review petition a notification no. 280/I-14-2011-71/I (1)/79 was issued in exercise of powers under Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act read with Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 on 23.8.2012. This notification records that the earlier notification under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act issued on 19.2.1984 was being cancelled so that the consolidation operations could be started to comply with the orders of the High Court dated 16.08.2007 passed in writ petition no. 32 of 2006. It is this notification which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 8. 32 of 2006. It is this notification which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 8. From the facts enumerated above it is clear that the notification which is impugned has been issued in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 16.8.2007 passed in writ petition no. 32 of 2006 against which the review application being review petition no. 230 of 2008 is pending disposal. The review petition has been tagged with this writ petition. 9. Under the circumstances, it appears the logical to first consider the review petition itself before considering the merits of the writ petition itself. 10. In this context, it would be relevant to point out that there is no order available on the record of the review petition directing issuance of notice to the opposite parties therein. However there is an order dated 21.10.2008 whereby the review petition was directed to put up on 24.10.2008 along with writ petition nos. 32 (Cons.) of 2006, 955 (Cons.) of 2002 and 877 (Cons.) of 2002. It was further directed that the learned counsel for the review petitioner inform the learned counsel for the opposite parties regarding the date fixed. This order appears to have been complied with. A counter affidavit to the review petition is stated to have been filed through Shri SMK Chaudhary, which however is not on record. Therefore a xerox copy of the original counter affidavit was supplied by Shri SMK Chaudhary and the same was taken on record on 03.03.2014 where after the parties were heard and judgment was reserved by me. 11. It was agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that they had no objection to the review petition being heard and decided finally. 12. I have heard Shri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the review petitioner, Mahant Jagdish Das Shastri who also appeared for the petitioners in writ petition no. 877 (Cons.) of 2002 and 955 (Cons.) of 2002 as also the petitioner in writ petition no. 51 of 2013. 13. 12. I have heard Shri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the review petitioner, Mahant Jagdish Das Shastri who also appeared for the petitioners in writ petition no. 877 (Cons.) of 2002 and 955 (Cons.) of 2002 as also the petitioner in writ petition no. 51 of 2013. 13. Shri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the Mahant Jagdish Das Shastri the review petitioner has submitted that the earlier writ petition had been filed on behalf of his client challenging the notification issued under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may make a representation whereupon authority concerned was required to take a fresh decision after holding an enquiry. This enquiry was held, material produced by the review petitioner was taken into consideration and after hearing the parties, the notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued in the year, 2005. He therefore submits that the notification under Section 6(1) had been issued at his instance and there were specific allegations against his client in the writ petition wherein the judgment under review was passed. He therefore submits that he was a necessary party but was never impleaded in the writ petition and under the circumstances he has right to file the review petition. He has submitted that a review petition is maintainable even at the instance of the stranger and has relied upon AIR 2004 SCC and (1997) 2 UPLBEC 848 to support this contention. 14. On merits he has submitted that both survey and record operations under the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the consolidation operations under the Consolidation of Holdings Act had been started simultaneously in the village in question namely Manjha Baretha. He submits that even during the consolidation operations initially the record of rights and maps etc. are verified and corrected and survey operations are conducted to ensure that the records are in consonance with the position as existing on the spot. These proceedings are identical to what is undertaken during the record and survey operations that are carried out consequent to a notification under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Both the Acts provide separate forums for disputes that may arise during these proceedings. These proceedings are identical to what is undertaken during the record and survey operations that are carried out consequent to a notification under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Both the Acts provide separate forums for disputes that may arise during these proceedings. Both the enactments provide a separate hierarchy of courts for deciding the disputes that there is no provision of law which provides primacy to either of these two hierarchies and both operate in the same field but each is not bound by the decision of the other and therefore there is every likelyhood of conflicting decisions on the same issue. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that a very anomalous situation is created if both the operations are undertaken simultaneously. The survey and record operations have been continuing since 1984 and there is material on record to establish that these proceedings have been completed as Fard Mutabiquat was prepared in 2007 itself. It was in the light of these problems and complications that the State Government had chosen to cancel the consolidation operations by issuing a notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act, which was quashed by the judgment under review. 15. Thus according to the learned counsel, Shri M.A. Siddiqui, the sole point for consideration in the writ petition was whether both, survey and record operations, as also consolidation operations could proceed simultaneously and it was this contention that was raised on behalf of the State by means of the averment contained in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The writ court by the judgment under review has quashed the notification under section 6(1) on the ground that no plausible reasons have been assigned for issuance of notification under Section 6(1) nor have reasons been provided by means of the counter affidavit filed by the State and that the case was not one which was covered by the provisions as contained in Rule 17-C of the Rules framed under the Act. 16. As regards both the saod issues, Shri M.A. Siddiqui has vehemently urged that the same are illegal and would not be made the basis of the judgment sought to be reviewed. Referring to the Division Bench decision in the case of Agriculture and Industrial Syndicate. 16. As regards both the saod issues, Shri M.A. Siddiqui has vehemently urged that the same are illegal and would not be made the basis of the judgment sought to be reviewed. Referring to the Division Bench decision in the case of Agriculture and Industrial Syndicate. He has submitted that by this judgment the Division Bench has held that no reasons are required to be assigned for issuing notifications under Section 4 or under Section 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. He has further submitted that the provisions as contained in Rule 17 are merely inclusive and are not exhaustive and therefore the authorities issuing the notification, was competent to issue the notification for reasons other than those mentioned in Rule 17. Lastly, he has submitted that there was material on record in the form of a resolution of the Gaon Sabha which was passed praying for cancellation of consolidation operations. Since these aspects of the matter were not considered and the decision was pronounced without noting that the village was under survey and record operation and therefore in ignorance of the notification under section 48 of the Land Revenue Act, he submits that the review application deserves to be allowed. He has cited the decision reported in 1962 ALJ 817 to buttress his argument that a judgment passed in ignorance of a relevant notification is liable to be reviewed. 17. In rebuttal, Shri SMK Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition (opposite party in the review petition) has submitted that the review is not maintainable as by the order sought to be reviewed no individual rights of the review petitioner are affected. He further submits that the notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act can be quashed if it is contrary to Rule 17-C of the Rules. He has also disputed the submission of Shri M.A. Siddiqui that survey and record operations and consolidation operations cannot proceed simultaneously. Alternatively, he has submitted that in any case both the notifications did not operate simultaneously. Once the notification under Section 6(1) was quashed by the judgment under the review, the same amounted to quashing of the notification under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He has relied upon the doctrine of prospective overruling to support this argument. Alternatively, he has submitted that in any case both the notifications did not operate simultaneously. Once the notification under Section 6(1) was quashed by the judgment under the review, the same amounted to quashing of the notification under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. He has relied upon the doctrine of prospective overruling to support this argument. Secondly, he has submitted that all proceedings, pending consideration consequent to the notification under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, abated once the village was brought under consolidation operations in view of the provisions contained in Section 5 (2) (a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 18. Shri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that pursuant to the judgment under review, consolidation operation started and have reached upto the section 9 stage. He submits that the notification under Section 4(2) is not under challenge and hence no effective relief can be granted to the review petitioner and, therefore, the review petition merits dismissal. He has, lastly, submitted that the power to cancel the consolidation operations is that of the State and the same has been exercised bona fide. 19. Upon a consideration of the rival submissions and a perusal of the material on record it is clear that the judgment dated 16.8.2007 has been passed on the reasoning that there was no reason assigned justifying issuance of the notification under Section 6 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the State had further failed to adduce any material justifying issuance of that notification despite having been granted time to file a counter affidavit for the said purpose. This finding, in my considered opinion, appears to be perverse inasmuch as the averments contained in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State were not taken into consideration while passing the judgment under review. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit specifically referred to a resolution of the Gaon Sabha in this regard. A copy of the resolution was also filed along with the counter affidavit and was on record. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit specifically referred to a resolution of the Gaon Sabha in this regard. A copy of the resolution was also filed along with the counter affidavit and was on record. Secondly, the specific contention raised on behalf of the State in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that it was not proper for both the record and survey operations as also the consolidation operations to proceed simultaneously as the same would give rise to difficulties and complications, has not at all been considered or even alluded to in the judgment under review. Moreover, the insistence of the Court upon some explanation for issuance of the notification under Section 6 (1) was not justified in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Ltd. reported in 1976 RD 35 wherein the Division Bench had held that no reasons were required to be assigned by the State while issuing notifications under Sections 4 or 6 of the Act. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that the judgment under review was passed contrary to and in ignorance of the law as laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Agriculturral and Industrial Syndicate (supra), which decision having been passed by a Division Bench was fully binding upon the Single Judge. 20. The contention raised on behalf of the State that since notification under section 4(2) of the C.H. Act is not under challenge and therefore the review needs to be dismissed as no effective relief can be granted to the review petitioner, it may be recorded that the submission is misconceived. In case the review is allowed and the order under review is set aside, the effect will be that the notification under section 6(1) of the Act shall revive, whereby consolidation operations were cancelled. 21. Accordingly, and for the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the review application has force and the judgment dated 16.08.2007 is liable to be reviewed. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the judgment and order dated 16.08.2007 is set aside. 22. It would now be proper to deal with the contentions in writ petition no. 51 of 2013 as also the impact of my order allowing the review application and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.07.2007. 23. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the judgment and order dated 16.08.2007 is set aside. 22. It would now be proper to deal with the contentions in writ petition no. 51 of 2013 as also the impact of my order allowing the review application and setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.07.2007. 23. A large number of issues have been canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition as also on behalf of the State represented by Shri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. I have also heard Shri S.M.K. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners in writ petition no. 32 of 2006. Shri S.M.K. Chaudhary had filed an application for impleadment on behalf of the persons, who had filed writ petition no. 32 of 2006 aforesaid. Although this impleadment was dismissed by me but Shri S.M.K. Chaudhary was permitted to intervene and I have heard him as intervener. 24. Although as stated above, a large number of points have been canvassed before me and a large number of decisions have also been cited in support of the rival contentions, yet, I am not considering all of them, as they, in my considered opinion, are more academic than substantial as regards deciding this writ petition on merits. Under the circumstances, I shall refer to only those contentions which according to me are material for a decision on merits in this writ petition. 25. It is clear from the detailed enumeration of facts given at the beginning of this judgment that the village Manjha Baretha was brought under survey and record operations in the year 1984 by issuance of notification under Section 48 of the Land Revenue Act. During the pendency of these operations and almost 20 years after these operations were started the village was brought under consolidation operations in the year 2001. Subsequently when the State realised the difficulties that started arising out of these simultaneous notification, the State, in its wisdom, decided to cancel the consolidation operations. The notification cancelling the consolidation operations was subjected to challenge in writ petition no. 32 of 2006 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 16.08.2007. This judgment apart from quashing the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act further directed that the consolidation operations be issued and be concluded within a period of five years. The notification cancelling the consolidation operations was subjected to challenge in writ petition no. 32 of 2006 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 16.08.2007. This judgment apart from quashing the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act further directed that the consolidation operations be issued and be concluded within a period of five years. This period of five years would expire in August, 2012. Instead of continuing with the consolidation operations, it appears that no proceedings were resorted to because even as on date the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act have proceeded to Section 9 stage only. It appears that faced with the prospect of contempt proceedings being initiated against the Officers concerned on account of the non-completion of the Consolidation Operations as directed by the order dated 16.08.2007, the impugned notification dated 23.8.2012 has been issued by the State Government cancelling the earlier notification under section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, issued in the year 1984. This notification has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. At this juncture, it is relevant to record that this notification no. 280/I-14/20111-71/01 (01)/79, copy whereof is filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, specifically states that it is being issued to cancel survey and record operations so that consolidation operations can be started to ensure compliance with the orders of the High Court dated 16.08.2007 and writ petition 32 of 2006. Thus, there can be no dispute that the impugned notification has been issued in deference to and for ensuring compliance of the directions issued by the judgment dated 16.08.2007. This judgment has already been set aside by me on the review application field by Mahant Jagdish Das Shastri herein above. Consequently, the very basis of the impugned notification now no longer exists. 26. Shri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition no. This judgment has already been set aside by me on the review application field by Mahant Jagdish Das Shastri herein above. Consequently, the very basis of the impugned notification now no longer exists. 26. Shri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition no. 51 of 2013 has submitted that there is no power under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act nor in any other provision in the said Act which would enable the Government to cancel a notification whereby the village in question was brought under survey and record operations Section 48 contemplates issuance of two notifications only: one, whereby survey and record operations are started and a second notification whereby these operations are brought to a close. He, therefore, submits since there is no power under the Act itself for cancelling survey and record operations and therefore the impugned notification is without jurisdiction and the provisions of Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act cannot be invoked to assume this jurisdiction. He submits that Section 21 cannot be invoked for enlarging the powers beyond what has been provided under the Act itself. Elaborating further he has submitted that once the notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is issued the Consolidation authorities are first of all required to carry out detailed enquiries and survey and record operations to correct the revenue records both as regards the area and valuation etc. Once the record has been prepared, persons aggrieved by the record so prepared are entitled to raise objections thereto, which are thereafter decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and finally the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This hierarchy of Courts has been provided under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. He contends that the exercise as is taken up by the consolidation authorities initially is identical to the exercise which is carried out during the survey and record operations under the U.P. Land Revenue Act but the hierarchy of courts in these proceedings is different. He submits that there is no law which provides as to which of these two hierarchies would prevail. He submits that there is no law which provides as to which of these two hierarchies would prevail. He submits that since survey and record operations have been going since the year 1984 and the same have been completed in 2007, issuance of notification under Section 4 whereby the unit has been brought under consolidation operations who lead to reopening all the matter that may have already attained finality. Under the Consolidation of Holdings Act the Government has the power to cancel the consolidation operations. However this power is subject to the provisions contained in sub-section 2 of Section 6 which provides that on the date of issuance of a notification under Section 6(1), cancelling the consolidation operations, all matter that have attained finality are saved. There is no analogous provisions under the Land Revenue Act which would save actions that have already attained finality under the provisions of the said Act and, therefore, the impugned notification which cancels survey and record operations amounts to setting the clock back and all matter that may have attained finality in those proceedings would stand wiped out. There is nothing either in the U.P. Land Revenue Act or in the impugned notification itself which would save those proceedings that have attained finality, meaning thereby that all action taken in the past 28 years would stand completely washed out. This, therefore, in fact, is the crux of his argument that section 21 of the General clauses Act cannot be invoked in the matter at hand. 27. In rebuttal, the contentions raised on behalf of the State as also Shri S.M.K. Chaudhary are basically that the decision taken by the State Government while issuing the impugned notification is a policy decision and such policy decisions are not open to challenge. The following decisions namely (2006) 10 SCC 66 also also the judgment of this Court in the case of Dev Nath Kewat reported in 1990 RD 177 have been relied upon in support of this contention. 28. Without undertaking a point by point analysis of the rival submissions as also the case law cited in support of rival contentions which, as already observed, I consider to be purely academic issues, I feel that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the complications that would arise on account of the cancellation of record and survey operations. Moreover, the impugned notification has not been issued by the State as a policy decision but is an action that has been taken to ensure compliance of directions issued by this court in its judgment dated 16.08.2007 which judgement has already been set aside by me. Thus, the very basis of the impugned notification has ceased to exist. Under the circumstances, the impugned notification deserves to be set aside and the matter needs to remitted to the State Government to take a fresh decision therein, taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case, right from the issuance of notification under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in the year 1984 as also the various pros and cons of continuing with survey and record operations or continuing with consolidation operations in the unit. 29. Since diverse orders have been passed in this matter earlier and opportunity of hearing was also provided to parties prior to issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of the Act in the year 2005 and this opportunity was afforded in pursuance of the direction of this Court, it would be appropriate that the State Government may examine the entire matter after affording opportunity of hearing to those who may wish to be heard. There is no doubt that the impugned notification is conditional legislation as have been held by the Division Bench in the case of Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate (supra). The apex court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. SABNYGHAM reported in (1998) 1 SCC 318 has held that such opportunity of hearing can be provided in appropriate cases. 30. Accordingly writ petition no. 51 of 2013 is allowed and the impugned notification dated 23.08.2012 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed. The review petition no. 230 of 2008 is also allowed. The judgment and order dated 16.08.2007 passed in writ petition no. 32 of 2006 is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. The matter is remanded back to the State Government to take a fresh decision keeping in mind the totality of the circumstances, right from issuance of notification under Section 48 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in the year 1984 till date and after affording opportunity of hearing that those who may wish to be heard in the matter and after conducting a detailed enquiry. It is further provided that this exercise may be completed within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the concerned authority.