JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. Through this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned notification dated 5.6.2013 issued by the respondent No. 2/Director of Consolidation U.P. Lucknow by which the notification No. 4595/G-35/60 dated 19.8.1989 under Sub-Section 2 of Section 4A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short ‘the Act’) has been cancelled. 3. The facts giving rise to this case are that the village in question was notified for consolidation vide notification dated 19.8.1989 mentioned hereinabove. The consolidation proceeded but because of opposition in village with respect to completion of the consolidation proceeding, the matter had earlier come up before this Court through Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16064 of 2006 (Brighu Nath Lal v. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petition No. 1422 of 2005 (Gaon Sabha Shrinagar and another v. State of U.P. and others). Through Writ Petition No. 1422 of 2005, the Gaon Sabha had knocked door of this Court for quashing the consolidation proceedings on account of illegalities and irregularities committed by the consolidation authorities and through other writ petiton, certain persons have approached this Court with the prayer to complete the consolidation proceedings. Both the writ petitions were clubbed and decided together vide order dated 31.3.2006. For appreciation, the order dated 31.3.2006 is reproduced hereinunder : These are two connected writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 1422 of 2005 has been filed by Gaon Sabha seeking a relief in the nature of mandamus to direct the Consolidation Authorities to quash the entire consolidation proceedings of the village on grounds of various illegalities and irregularities. During the pendency of the said writ petition another writ petition No. 16064 of 2006 has been filed seeking a relief to direct the consolidation authorities to take necessary steps to complete the consolidation proceedings. In this writ petition an order dated 17.2.2005 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia has been annexed by which the Consolidation proceedings undertaken had been set aside and a direction has been issued to restart the consolidation proceedings from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation writ petition No. 1422 of 2005 appears to have become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation writ petition No. 1422 of 2005 appears to have become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. In so far as writ petition No. 16064 of 2006 is concerned the same is disposed of with a direction to the consolidation authorities to complete the consolidation proceedings in accordance with law and as per the direction given by the Deputy Director of consolidation vide order dated 17.2.2005 as expeditiously as possible. 4. It is stated that after the judgment of this Court, the petitioners have filed an application before the Consolidation Commissioner alongwith certified copy of the order of this Court for directing the authorities to conclude the consolidation proceedings. The averments made in paragraphs 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the writ petition are reproduced hereinunder : 27. That in this regard two writ petition were filed one by Gaon Sabha Sri Nagar as writ petition No. 1422/2005 and another by present petitioner as writ petition No. 16064/2005 Bhrigunath Lal v. State of U.P. and others, consequently both writ petition were disposed of by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 31.3.2006. 28. That while passing the judgement Hon’ble Court rightly considered the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Ballia dated 31.3.2005 by means of the same said Authority cancelled earlier chak carvation proceeding for consolidation with a direction to restart the chak carvation consolidation proceeding from the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. 29. That in pursuance to Hon’ble Judgement dated 31.3.2006 petitioner rightly represented his matter through representation dated 2.5.2006 with request to comply with the direction of this Hon’ble Court and conclude the Consolidation Proceeding which is pending since long. 30. That the petitioner No. 1 has also rightly represented his matter through reminder dated 2.2.2009 for compliance of the Hon’ble Court order unfortunately no any heed paid by the respondents for finalization of consolidation proceeding as it is continuing since long. 5. In substance, these paragraphs find mentioned about the decision of this Court and the various representations made to the Consolidation Commissioner. When nothing was done, the present writ petition has been filed in which on 4.9.2013, notices were issued and the learned Standing Counsel was directed to file counter-affidavit. 5. In substance, these paragraphs find mentioned about the decision of this Court and the various representations made to the Consolidation Commissioner. When nothing was done, the present writ petition has been filed in which on 4.9.2013, notices were issued and the learned Standing Counsel was directed to file counter-affidavit. Pursuant thereto a counter-affidavit has been filed duly sworn by Sri Omkar Nath, Consolidation Officer, Ballia mentioning therein that he has been authorized by the respondents i.e. Secretary Revenue, Consolidation Commissioner and District Magistrate/Deputy Director of Consolidation to file counter-affidavit. The affidavit does not contain any authorization to Sri Omkar Nath, Consolidation Officer, Ballia to file counter-affidavit on behalf of other state respondents. 6. From the perusal of the counter-affidavit it transpires that due to opposition in village, with regard to completion of consolidation proceedings, the Consolidation Commissioner has exercised the power vested in him under Section 6 of the Act. Rule 17 of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short ‘the Rules’) enumerates situation under which the notification under Section 6 can be issued. 7. For appreciation, Rule 17 of the Rules is reproduced hereinunder :. 17. 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.” Sub-Rule (c) of Rule 17 of the Rules speaks that the notification under Section 4 may be cancelled because of the party factions as to render proper consolidation proceeding in the village very difficult. I have gone through the impugned notification, which reads as under. I have gone through the impugned notification, which reads as under. foKfIr jn~n mRrj izns'k tksr pdcanh vf/kfu;e] 1953 ¼mRrj izns'k vf/kfu;e la[;k&5&1954 bZ0½ èkkjk&6 dh mi/kkjk&¼1½ ds v/khu ljdkjh foKfIr la0&8313@vkbZ0,0&813@1954 fnukad] vDVwcj] 1956 }kjk ;Fkk izfrfufgr vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s eSa] ,y- osadVs'oj yw] pdcanh lapkyd] mRrj izns'k] rglhy cSfj;k] tuin&cfyk ds xzke Jhuxj esa mi;qZDr vfèkfu;e /kkjk&4d¼2½ ds v/khu tkjh dh x;h foKfIr la[;k&4595@th&35@60 fnukad 19-08-1989 ,rn~ fujLr djrk gwWaA ,y- osadVs'oj yw pdcanh lapkyd] mRrj izns'k 8. From the perusal of which, it transpires that it does not contain any reason as to why notification has been issued under Section 6 of the Act. It has neither taken note of the order passed by this Court dated 31.3.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16064 of 2006 (Brighu Nath Lal v. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petitiion No. 1422 of 2005 (Gaon Sabha Shrinagar and another v. State of U.P. and others) nor taken into consideration the reasons for which notification under Section 6 can be issued. However, in counter-affidavit certain justification has been made. 9. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 , the Apex Court has held that reasons cannot be supplemented by way of filing counter-affidavit and the order has to be tested on its face value whether it contains the reason or not. 10. In my opinion, the notification dated 5th June, 2013 suffers from non-consideration of Rule 17 of the Rules as well as the order of this Court dated 31.3.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16064 of 2006 (Brighu Nath Lal v. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petitiion No. 1422 of 2005 (Gaon Sabha Shrinagar and another v. State of U.P. and others), therefore it cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. However, it will be open for the Consolidation Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law taking note of the order passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16064 of 2006 (Brighu Nath Lal v. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petitiion No. 1422 of 2005 (Gaon Sabha Shrinagar and another v. State of U.P. and others) as well as the provisions contained under Rule 17 of the Rules. Writ Petition No. 16064 of 2006 (Brighu Nath Lal v. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petitiion No. 1422 of 2005 (Gaon Sabha Shrinagar and another v. State of U.P. and others) as well as the provisions contained under Rule 17 of the Rules. It is also observed that in case, the Consolidation Commissioner decides to take fresh decision, that shall be taken expeditiously but not later than four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. ———————