Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1503 (ALL)

Ramesh Kumar v. State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ,Revenue Dept.

2016-04-22

ASHOK PAL SINGH, NARAYAN SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT The petitioners have assailed the Notification dated 6.2.2014 whereby the area of the village Arjunpur, P.O. Dabauli, Tehsil Safipur (now Bangarmau), District Unnao has been notified under consolidation operation. 2. The petitioner has submitted that Rule 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') provides that Notification made under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 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: "(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 consolidate 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 the purpose." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his case is fully covered under Clause (b) of the Rule 17 as about 46 villagers are not satisfied with the ensuing consolidation operation. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions provided by the respondents, has submitted that the notification was issued in 2013 and the Village Consolidation Committee as well as the entire tenure holders of the area are satisfied with the ensuing consolidation operation and they are willing to get consolidated their lands. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that the ingredients for cancellation of consolidation notification are lacking, therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner to interfere in the consolidation operation are unsustainable. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.