Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1900 (ALL)

Jagdish Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-07-01

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J.: - This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to conduct a high level enquiry regarding consolidation operation in the village Deeh Khas, Pargana, Kewai, Tahsil Handia, district Allahabad and to made publication under section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for ends of justice accordingly. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the Chak-objections in respect of second consolidation proceedings regarding abadi as well as other reserves lands forthwith and to drop the proceeding of delivery of possession till disposal of the objections. 3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to take appropriate decision upon petitioners' representation dated 28.5.2014 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition in accordance with law within reasonable time. 4. issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Award cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." 2. Heard Sri V.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 3. In substance the petitioners appear to be aggrieved by continuance of consolidation proceeding pursuant to the notification issued under section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short the Act). From the perusal of the prayers it appears number of representations have been made for stopping/cancelling the consolidation proceeding. Such representations have been made to assist the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State submits that the authorities to whom representations have been made have no power to cancel the notification issued under section 4 of the Act. In his submission the petitioners' remedy is available under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. I find substance in the submission of the learned standing counsel. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that for the redressal of their grievance the petitioners may approach the appropriate authority through a detailed application along with a certified copy of the order of this Court under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that for the redressal of their grievance the petitioners may approach the appropriate authority through a detailed application along with a certified copy of the order of this Court under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. In case, such an approach is made the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned. 6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of.