# Chaman Lal @Chunni Lal and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 359
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-03-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21350 of 2010
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chaman-lal-chunni-lal-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41897
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act 1953,
Section-6-Denotification of consolidation
scheme-village inquestion brought under
consolidation scheme-notification under
Section 4(2) issued on 20-8-2009-when
a complete procedure provided in the Act
itself-Court should not interfere with
task of Government stay granted earlier
ignoring
this
aspects-liable
to
discharged.

Held: Para 10

Unfortunately, in the opinion of the
Court, this petition amounts to a
premature exercise and is otherwise an
abuse of the process of court as an
interim order has been passed staying
the
proceedings
of
consolidation
operations until further orders of this
Court
without
allowing
the
State
Government to apply its mind. The stay
of
a
notification
under
Section
4
amounts to staying the operation of
law
which
in
my
opinion
is
not
permissible.
The
State
Government
should be allowed to exercise his
discretion before any interference is
caused in the exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

## Text

1 All] Chaman Lal @Chunni Lal and others V. State of U.P. and others
359
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21350 of 2010

Chaman Lal @ Chunni Lal and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri P.R. Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act 1953,
Section-6-Denotification of consolidation
scheme-village inquestion brought under
consolidation scheme-notification under
Section 4(2) issued on 20-8-2009-when
a complete procedure provided in the Act
itself-Court should not interfere with
task of Government stay granted earlier
ignoring
this
aspects-liable
to
discharged.

Held: Para 10

Unfortunately, in the opinion of the
Court, this petition amounts to a
premature exercise and is otherwise an
abuse of the process of court as an
interim order has been passed staying
the
proceedings
of
consolidation
operations until further orders of this
Court
without
allowing
the
State
Government to apply its mind. The stay
of
a
notification
under
Section
4
amounts to staying the operation of
law
which
in
my
opinion
is
not
permissible.
The
State
Government
should be allowed to exercise his
discretion before any interference is
caused in the exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. This petition prays for a
mandamus directing the respondentsconsolidation authorities not to proceed
with the consolidation operations in the
village in question.

2. The aforesaid prayer is founded
on the allegation that the consolidation
operations would be against the interest of
the tenure holders as 80% area of the
village is covered by stones and hills
which would make the consolidation
operations practically impossible. The
area is also full of drainage and riverbeds
and a single crop is available to the
farmers, therefore, a desire was expressed
for not proceeding with the consolidation
operations.

3. The village was brought under the
consolidation
operations
under
the
provisions of Section 4(2) of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The
notification was issued on 20.08.2009.

4. Once such a notification was
issued the consolidation operations have
to be set into motion. The power to
denotify or cancel a notification vests in
the State Government under Section 6 of
the
U.P.
Consolidation
and
Land
Holdings Act. The same is quoted
hereinbelow:

6.
Cancellation
of
notification
under Section 4. (1) It shall be lawful for
the State Government at any time to
cancel the [notification] made under
Section 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 under
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
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
consolidation
operations with effect from the date of the
cancellation.]

5. For exercise of of the said power
certain guidelines have been given under
the Rules and Rule 17 of the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 is
extracted 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.

6.

The
aforesaid
provisions,
therefore, clearly empower the State
Government to cancel a notification in
case any such contingency exists as
indicated above. It may be mentioned that
the guidelines contained in Rule 17 are
not exhaustive. The State Government can
in its discretion proceed to cancel a
notification.

7. The issue as to whether courts can
enter
into
any
such
dispute
was
considered in the case of Sazid and others
Vs. Commissioner of Consolidation and
others reported in 1999 (4) AWC 2788
and it was held that courts should not take
over the task of examining the validity of
a notification issued under Section 4 of
the U.P.C.H. Act.

8. However, when orders are passed
under Section 6 a judicial review may be
permissible to a limited extent if the
action taken is arbitrary or is against the
interest of public at large in view of the
provisions of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953.

9. In the instant case the petitioners
contend that they have approached the
State Government and, therefore, this writ
petition be entertained.

10. Unfortunately, in the opinion of
the Court, this petition amounts to a
premature exercise and is otherwise an
abuse of the process of court as an interim
order has been passed staying the
proceedings of consolidation operations
until further orders of this Court without
allowing the State Government to apply
its mind. The stay of a notification under
Section 4 amounts to staying the
operation of law which in my opinion is
not permissible. The State Government
should be allowed to exercise his
discretion before any interference is
caused in the exercise of jurisdiction
1 All] C/M Visheshwar Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and another V. State of U.P. and others 361
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

11. Accordingly, this court does not
find any good reason to continue the
interim order dated 20.04.2010 or to set
aside the impugned notification dated
20.08.2009 issued under Section 4 of the
U.P.C.H. Act, 1953.

12. In view of this, the interim order
dated 20.04.2010 is vacated the writ
petition is dismissed.

13. It shall be open to the petitioners
to approach the State Government for the
redressal of their grievances in the light of
the observations made hereinabove.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12826 of 2011

C/M Visheshwar Uchchatar Madhyamik
Vidyalaya and another
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anil Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondent
C.S.C.

Payment of Salary Act, Section-6(3)-
order of single operation-on ground the
term of management already elasped-No
right to hold office -held-order of single
operation can not be passed-but in garb
of
amendment
in
scheme
of
administration extending period from 3
to 5 years-without approval-no right to
hold the office-Regional Joint Director to
allow the DIOS to act as authorized
controller who shall proceed to hold
election within 3 month.

Held: Para 12

Accordingly it is hereby declared that the
power invoked by the Regional Joint
Director of Education under Section 6(3)
of the U.P.Act No.24 of 1971 was not
available as there was no default in
payment of salary.
Case law discussed:
2005 (1) UPLBEC 85

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1,2
and 3.

2. In view of the nature of the order
that is proposed to be ,passed it is not
necessary to issue any notice to the
respondent no.4 at this stage.

3. Needless to mention that the
petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.
10093 of 2011 which was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ
petition keeping in view the order dated
8.7.2008 and this writ petition has been
filed assailing the said order dated 8.7.2008.

4. The present writ petition assails the
order dated 28.1.2011 whereby Committee
of Management has been superseded in
exercise of powers under Section 6(3) of the
Payment of Salary Act under U.P.Act
No.24 of 1971 on the ground that the
Committee which had been validly elected
in Jan.,2006 had not been recognised and an
oder has been passed on 8.7.2008 refusing
to grant recognition. Accordingly the said
Committee has no right to continue. The
period of the Committee of Management