JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Before Lunch: 1. Put up after lunch alongwith the record of Writ Petition Nos. 138 of 2019, 157 of 2019 and 32590 of 2014. After Lunch: These five writ petitions have been filed seeking separate reliefs. However, this Court finds that the issues involved in these petitions to be interlinked with each other. Therefore, a common order is being passed in them. 2. Writ Petition No. 138/2019 and Writ Petition No. 157/2019 were both filed seeking a writ of mandamus for the expeditious disposal of objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, pending consideration since the year 1987. A detailed order was passed in that regard in Writ Petition No. 138/2019 calling for instructions. 3. The instructions received have been taken on record. 4. In these two writ petitions an affidavit of the Consolidation Commissioner U.P. has been filed. Alongwith this affidavit, is appended a chart as Annexure A-1 giving details of various cases under Section 9A(2) pending consideration before the various Consolidation Officers in District Jaunpur. The total number of such cases is stated to be 1068. 5. From a perusal of this chart, this Court finds that one of the cases arises out of a notification bringing the unit under consolidation operations, issued in the year 1955. It pertains to village Chaturbujhpur, Pargana-Handi. 6. It also emerges from the chart that numerous cases are pending since 1966, onwards. 7. The affidavit that have been filed is silent as to the reasons for this huge pendency as also the inordinate delay in disposal of the cases under Section 9A(2). 8. It would be relevant to note that an objection under Section 9A(2) is the point of initiation of proceedings and is followed by an appeal, thereafter a revision and thereafter, almost invariably, a writ petition before this Court. 9. However, in paragraph 6, details of the steps which are sought to be taken to ensure speedy and time bound disposal of old cases, are mentioned. The instructions, allegedly, issued in this regard are detailed in Annexure A-2 to this affidavit. 10. Writ Petitions 32590/2014 and 5770/2018 seek a writ of mandamus, directing the Consolidation authorities to affect delivery of possession expeditiously, as per, the confirmed consolidation scheme. 11. The instructions, allegedly, issued in this regard are detailed in Annexure A-2 to this affidavit. 10. Writ Petitions 32590/2014 and 5770/2018 seek a writ of mandamus, directing the Consolidation authorities to affect delivery of possession expeditiously, as per, the confirmed consolidation scheme. 11. Writ Petition No. 32590 of 2014 seeks this relief with regard to Village Khem, Pargana-Chirrayikot, District-Azamgarh, while writ petition No. 5770/2018 seeks this relief with regard to village Udayrajpur, Paragana-Lohta, District-Varanasi. 12. Separate set of instructions have been received by learned Standing Counsel in both these petitions. 13. In Writ Petition No. 32590/2014 a detailed order had been passed by this Court on 12.12.2018, relevant portion whereof is extracted below: "This Court has also encountered numerous writ petitions wherein allegations of arbitrariness have been raised against the consolidation authorities. Large number of writ petitions have been filed on the ground that the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are being misused by politicians and other politically powerful members of the rural communities for securing private ends, under the garb of consolidation operations. Such persons get notifications issued bringing villages under consolidation operations, and in the ensuing proceedings, the prime land in the units gets allotted to powerful persons while the disadvantaged sections of agriculturists are shifted to comparatively infertile and commercially inconsequential lands. However, be that as it may, once an enactment has been enforced by the State Government, the same has to be enforced in its totality. The State Government or its functionaries cannot take a plea that they are unable to implement the provisions of an enactment which is in force. Such a plea can only mean two things; either the functionaries of the State, the Consolidation Authorities, included, are incompetent or else they are not performing their statutory duties, probably at the behest of their political masters. Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue. Besides, there are numerous instances where taking shelter of alleged opposition to delivery of possession by villagers, notifications have been issued by the State Government/Consolidation Commissioner, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 6(1) of the Act, canceling consolidation operations. Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue. Besides, there are numerous instances where taking shelter of alleged opposition to delivery of possession by villagers, notifications have been issued by the State Government/Consolidation Commissioner, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 6(1) of the Act, canceling consolidation operations. Such action, again, is no solution because the consolidation authorities while doing so, fail to comprehend the implication of sub-section 2 of Section 6 of the Act, which provides that despite cancellation of consolidation operations, any matter which has attained finality before consolidation operations are canceled, shall have to be implemented. The effect is that there would be numerous instances where chak allotments have become final prior to cancellation operations, which in every case have to be implemented by the authorities. Hence, issuance of notifications under Section 6(1) of the Act, which is being frequently resorted to by the consolidation authorities, is not a remedy, but mere abdication and/or failure to exercise/perform their statutory duties. Moreover, such abdication of authority is at a huge cost, both to the exchequer as also to individual tenure-holders, who have to face litigation, forced upon them by the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This cost is both in terms of time spent as also in financial terms which includes cost of litigation. The State and consolidation authorities, by their inaction or misplaced actions are ultimately seeking to deprive the tenure-holders of the fruits of their labour and financial resources, expended in such forced litigation. Let a copy of this order be given to learned Standing Counsel for onward transmission to the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P. Lucknow inviting his comments. The Principal Secretary shall respond as to why the State Government, if it is totally incompetent and incapable of implementing a particular enactment, is continuing to enforce the same in the State of U.P. and whether under the prevailing circumstances, there exists any other option but to repeal the enactment, itself." 14. In pursuance of the directions aforesaid, the instructions that have received by learned Standing Counsel on 12.3.2019, have been taken on record. 15. In pursuance of the directions aforesaid, the instructions that have received by learned Standing Counsel on 12.3.2019, have been taken on record. 15. With regard to the relief claimed in writ petition No. 32590 of 2014 it is stated that the writ Court, on 26.2.2015, passed an order in writ petition No. 11884/2015, where under, the authorities were required to ensure delivery of possession in village Khemajit, Paragana-Chirayikoot, District-Azamgarh over the confirmed chaks, before June 2015. 16. Admittedly, this order has been complied with by the consolidation authorities. Therefore, they are in clear contempt of the directions issued by this Court, as far back as on 26.2.2015. 17. The instructions also state that in pursuance of the directions issued, it was found that a notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, cancelling the consolidation operations was not liable to be issued regarding the consolidation operations in Village Khemajit as it would amount to contempt of the order passed by the High Court. 18. The remaining explanations that have been given in the instructions, show that absolutely noyy effort was made by the consolidation authorities to comply with order passed on 26.2.2015 in Writ Petition No. 11884 of 2015. 19. The remaining instructions are mere reiteration of the law as it stands and this part of the instructions are nothing an attempt to waste the time of the Court. The Court had not enquired about the law as it stands. Instructions had been called for explaining the manifest contempt committed by the Consolidation Authorities but they are absolutely silent on this aspect of the matter. 20. However, what is relevant is that it has been alleged that directions have been issued to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, vide letter dated 26.10.2018, to proceed in accordance with paragraph 18-A of the Consolidation Manual. Even this letter is more than 3 months old. 21. This is the state of affairs, when this petition is still pending and almost weekly dates are being fixed and the matter is being continuously monitored to assess the progress made. 22. In the last part of the instructions, it has been stated that delivery of possession has not been affected due to the adverse circumstances prevailing in village Khemajit The same is based on the opinion of the persons furnishing the information. 22. In the last part of the instructions, it has been stated that delivery of possession has not been affected due to the adverse circumstances prevailing in village Khemajit The same is based on the opinion of the persons furnishing the information. No cogent details in this regard are mentioned in the instructions and everything has been left to the imagination of this Court. 23. Finally it has been stated that first round of consolidation operation have been concluded in 100247 villages and in 24933 villages the second round of consolidation operation have been concluded. Thus, the first round of consolidation operation are still underway in 924 villages. The second round of consolidation operations are stated to be pending in 2173 villages as on date. 24. The instructions with regard to Writ Petition No. 5720 of 2018 state that the village in question was brought under consolidation operation by a notification under Section 4 of the C.H. Act issued on 28.3.1979 and that consolidation operation came to a close by the notification under Section 52(1) of the Act issued on 27.8.1987. 25. It has also been stated that the Proceedings Register namely C.H. Form 29, does not mention the date on which delivery of possession was effected in the unit. It has also been stated that all the applications annexed to the writ petition for proper demarcation of chaks etc. have been filed after the issuance of notification under Section 52(1) of the Act. 26. On the earlier occasion, the Proceedings Register had been produced by learned Standing Counsel. The Court had directed that photostat copies of the relevant pages be retained while returning the original record. The photo copies that are available with learned Standing Counsel, however, are almost completely, unreadable. 27. Learned Standing Counsel has stated that the Proceedings Register contains no mention of the proceedings required to be taken in accordance with Sections 24 to 27 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, which relate to delivery of possession over the chaks finalized during consolidation operations. The last page of the Proceedings Register mentions the date of publication by notification under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and nothing else, thereafter. 28. This again appears to be a glaring mistake of unimaginable proportions. The last page of the Proceedings Register mentions the date of publication by notification under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and nothing else, thereafter. 28. This again appears to be a glaring mistake of unimaginable proportions. In case, delivery of possession have not been affected, the consolidation operations could have been closed by a notification under Section 52 of the Act. 29. From the facts noticed above, it is clear that two types of situations, at least, prevail as regards consolidation operations in U.P. At some places the objections filed at the very initial stage of consolidation operations, have remained pending for more than 40 years, without being decided by the consolidation Courts. 30. The other set of writ petitions pertain to cases where delivery of possession has not been affected despite the chaks having been finalized or where consolidation operations have been closed without their being any material to show that delivery of possession over the confirmed chaks was ever affected by the Consolidation Authorities. 31. This Court considers it appropriate that these two sets of cases, the reliefs claimed therein, be balanced by taking a holistic view of the matter. For this purpose, the Principal Secretary Revenue is directed to file an affidavit within three weeks from today giving specific details as regards the following points: (i) Number of villages in U.P. where delivery of possession has not been effected despite chak appeals having been finalized, specifically mentioning the dates on which the provisional consolidation scheme has been published in the unit. (ii) The number of cases in which notifications under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act have been issued after confirmation of the provisional consolidation scheme. Such numbers should be provided District wise. (iii) How many proposals are pending before the authorities for issuance of a notification under Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the ground that there is a problem in effecting delivery of possession over the confirmed chaks. This information again shall be provided District wise. (iv) Steps that have been taken to ensure speedy disposal of objections under Section 9A(2), which have remained pending for 10 years or more, alongwith the any further steps, proposed to be taken for deciding such cases. 32. This information again shall be provided District wise. (iv) Steps that have been taken to ensure speedy disposal of objections under Section 9A(2), which have remained pending for 10 years or more, alongwith the any further steps, proposed to be taken for deciding such cases. 32. For the purposes of bringing on record the affidavit detailing the information sought above, learned Standing Counsel is granted three weeks time from today. The matter shall be listed immediately on the expiry of three weeks. 33. However, in view of the facts noted above, a direction is issued to the Principal Secretary Revenue and the State-respondent to ensure that no notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is issued, bringing any new village under consolidation operations till such time, the personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary Revenue called for above, has been filed before this Court. 34. Let a copy of this order be provided to Learned Standing Counsel during the course of the day for necessary compliance.