Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1840 (ALL)

Umrao v. State of U. P.

2014-06-09

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2014
JUDGMENT Surya Prakash Kesarwani: - Heard Sri Kr. Hans Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Briefly stated facts in the pre¬sent writ petition are that the petition¬ers, who are three in numbers have challenged the impugned order dated 7.5.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow, pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 65448 of 2013. The petitioners claim themselves to be the resident of village Chikasi, Tehsil Sarila, Hamirpur. They are op-posing the consolidation proceedings in the village in question on the ground that the major portion of about 2/3rd of the land at village Chikasi is rubble, rugged, usar, Nala and stony and is not fit for agricultural operation which is surrounded by Betwa Dhasan River. 3. Learned Counsel for the peti¬tioners submits that the impugned order dated 7.5.2014 passed by Commissioner, Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow is liable to be set aside inasmuch all the villagers in question do not want consolidation. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the submission on behalf of the petitioners is wholly misconceived. The consolidation is done according to the provision of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. In the impugned order the respondent No. 3 has well considered the report of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hamirpur and the provision of section 6 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 read with Rule 17 and thereafter, rejected the representations dated 7.10.2013 and 10.2.2014. He submits that the impugned order has been validly passed and therefore no interference may be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. 6. It appears that in Writ Petition No. 65448 of 2013, this Court passed an order on 29.11.2013 directing the respondent No. 3 to get an enquiry made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hamirpur on the representation of the petitioners and obtain a report of the same and decide the representation of the petitioners expeditiously. 7. 6. It appears that in Writ Petition No. 65448 of 2013, this Court passed an order on 29.11.2013 directing the respondent No. 3 to get an enquiry made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hamirpur on the representation of the petitioners and obtain a report of the same and decide the representation of the petitioners expeditiously. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 3 called for a report from the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hamirpur who submitted the report vide letter dated 28.3.2014 the respondent No. 3 considered the report and passed the impugned order on the grounds briefly mentioned below (A) The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hamirpur stated in his report dated 28.3.2014 that the total area of village Chilkasi is 1592.302 Hec. out of which only 149.86 Hec. is affected by Nala, Katan uneven etc. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has completed the work of preparation of chaks and disposed of the objections and merely the transfer of possession remains to be done. (B) The village Pradhan and all the poor persons are in favour of consolidation and, therefore, restraining the consolidation proceeding shall not be in the interest of poor peasants of the village. (C) There are few musclemen in the village, who have illegally occupied the agricultural land of poor peasants and only they are opposing the consolidation proceedings. Most of the villagers are in favour of consolidation proceedings. 8. The respondent No. 3 considered the report of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hamirpur and recorded a finding that a total percentage of land of village Chikasi which is fit for consolidation is 61%. None of the circumstances as mentioned in section 6(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 read Rule 17 exists which may call for cancellation of notification for consolidation under section 4 of the Act. 9. Section 6 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides as under "Cancellation of notification under section 4 -- (1) It shall be lawful for the State Government at any time to cancel the notification made under sec¬tion 4 in respect of the whole or any part of the area specified therein. 9. Section 6 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides as under "Cancellation of notification under section 4 -- (1) It shall be lawful for the State Government at any time to cancel the notification made under sec¬tion 4 in respect of the whole or any part of the area specified therein. (2) Where a notification has been cancelled in respect of any unit un¬der 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 cancellation, cease to be under con¬solidation operations with .effect from the date of the cancellation." 10. Rule 17 of the U.P. Consolida¬tion of Holdings Rules, 1954 provides as under;-- Section 6 -- The (notification) made under section 4 of the Act, may among other reasons, be cancelled in respect of 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 consolidation operations inequitable to a section of the peasantry; (b) the holdings of the village are already consolidated for one reason or the other and the tenure-holders are generally satisfied with the present position; (c) the village is so torn up by party factions as to render proper consolidation proceedings in the village very difficult; and (d) that 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." 11. There is no pleading in the writ petition that any of the circumstances mentioned in Rule 17 of the Rule exists with regard to the village in question. 12. The only submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that all the villagers do not want consolidation. Such a submission has been found to be wholly baseless. The village Pradhan and Consolidation Committee have passed a resolution that if consolidation in the Village in question is stopped, it shall cause much harm to poor peasants. The report of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation specifically states that merely a few musclemen who have illegally occupied the lands of poor peasants are opposing the consolidation proceeding. Merely 9% of the total land of the village has been found to be un-even and effected by erosion. The report of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation specifically states that merely a few musclemen who have illegally occupied the lands of poor peasants are opposing the consolidation proceeding. Merely 9% of the total land of the village has been found to be un-even and effected by erosion. The consolidation proceeding has already been initiated and the work of preparation of chak and disposal of objections have been completed by the Consolidation Officer. The transfer of possession is now to be made. 13. Thus, the objections of the petitioners who are only three in numbers, has no force. In fact this writ petition is nothing but abuse of process of the Court and, therefore, it should be dismissed with heavy cost. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of ? 2000/- on each of the petitioners who have jeopardized the public interest and the governmental work of completion of consolidation proceedings. 15. The writ petition is dismissed with cost of ? 2000/- on each petition¬ers. Petition Dismissed.