# Janardan Singh and others v. D.M. Varanasi and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 363
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-03-25
- **Case number:** Section 6(3) of the U.P.Act No.24 of 1971
- **Bench:** A.P.Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/janardan-singh-and-others-v-d-m-varanasi-and-others-41899
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953Section-44-A-Power
of
Distt.
Magistrate/DDC-to
cancel
the
consolidation
operation-in
village
in
Question
consolidation
Proceeding
almost got finality-D.D.C. At this stage
only can send recommendation to the
Govt.-who is competent to take decision
and
not
beyond
that-order
of
cancellation of consolidation proceeding
by
Dist.
Magistrate-held-without
jurisdiction.

Held: Para 26

It is no doubt true that the power vests
in the Deputy Director of Consolidation
or the District Magistrate to annul such
proceedings in view of the decisions that
have been referred to by the learned
counsel
for
the
respondent.
While
exercising powers on the judicial side
they have to confine to the limits of
exercise of such power that is available
to the authorities. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation under Section 44-A would
therefore exercise a power to proceed to
which it is permissible in law and not
beyond the same.
Case law discussed:
1983 RD 249; 1984 RD 180; 1990 RD 115;
1969 RD 329; 1982 RD 142.

## Text

1 All] Janardan Singh and others V. D.M. Varanasi and others
363

10. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
Section 6(3) of the U.P.Act No.24 of 1971
could
not
have
been
invoked
for
superseding
the
Committee
of
Management, appears to be correct. There
has to be default in the payment of salary as
held in the case of Committee of
Management, Shahid Sansmaran Inter
College (supra). Learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that there was no default
in the payment of salary and there are
decisions which hold that if there is no
validly elected Committee of Management
then in such circumstances an order of
single operation may be passed pertaining
to the salary of staff and other employees of
the institution. Sri Anil Bhushan then
contends that in view of the provisions
relating to the tenure of the Committee of
Management as contained in clause 8 of the
Scheme of Administration the earlier office
bearers are entitled to continue. Clause 8 of
the Scheme of Administration is quoted
below:

^^izca/k lfefr ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk lnL;ksa dk
^^izca/k lfefr ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk lnL;ksa dk
^^izca/k lfefr ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk lnL;ksa dk
^^izca/k lfefr ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk lnL;ksa dk
dk;Zdky insu lnL; dks NksMdj muds fuokZfpr
dk;Zdky insu lnL; dks NksMdj muds fuokZfpr
dk;Zdky insu lnL; dks NksMdj muds fuokZfpr
dk;Zdky insu lnL; dks NksMdj muds fuokZfpr
frfFk ls mudk dk;Zdky rhu o"kZ dk jgkA fdUrq
frfFk ls mudk dk;Zdky rhu o"kZ dk jgkA fdUrq
frfFk ls mudk dk;Zdky rhu o"kZ dk jgkA fdUrq
frfFk ls mudk dk;Zdky rhu o"kZ dk jgkA fdUrq
iqjkus lnL; rc rd dk;Z djrs jgsaxs tc rd fd
iqjkus lnL; rc rd dk;Z djrs jgsaxs tc rd fd
iqjkus lnL; rc rd dk;Z djrs jgsaxs tc rd fd
iqjkus lnL; rc rd dk;Z djrs jgsaxs tc rd fd
muds LFkku ij u;s fuokZpu lkslkbVh }kjk u gks
muds LFkku ij u;s fuokZpu lkslkbVh }kjk u gks
muds LFkku ij u;s fuokZpu lkslkbVh }kjk u gks
muds LFkku ij u;s fuokZpu lkslkbVh }kjk u gks
tk;sA^^
tk;sA^^
tk;sA^^
tk;sA^^

11. This provision was also dealt
with in para 38(3) by the Full Bench
decision in the case of Committee of
Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter
College (supra) . In such a situation the
petitioner committee of management
cannot
continue
perennially
without
holding of elections and the tenure of the
Committee of Management as prescribed
in the Scheme of Administration has to be
honoured and respected in letter and
spirit. It is the admitted case of the
petitioner that no elections have been
held. The proposed amendment in the
Scheme of Administration has not been
approved.

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.

13. Nonetheless in view of the
reasons recorded herein above and in
view of the decision of the Full Bench of
this Court as indicated above the
Committee of Management could not
have continued without holding elections.
Accordingly the Regional Joint Director
of Education shall allow the District
Inspector of Schools to continue as the
Authorised Controller in view of the
conclusions drawn herein above and the
District Inspector of Schools shall now
proceed to hold elections after finalisation
of the electoral college in accordance with
law within a period of three months.

The writ petition is disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDITION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2011

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.63495 of 2009

Janardan Singh and others ...Petitioner
Versus
D.M. Varanasi and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Aditya Naryan
Sri S.K. Pandey
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Jeevan Prakash Sharma
C.S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953Section-44-A-Power
of
Distt.
Magistrate/DDC-to
cancel
the
consolidation
operation-in
village
in
Question
consolidation
Proceeding
almost got finality-D.D.C. At this stage
only can send recommendation to the
Govt.-who is competent to take decision
and
not
beyond
that-order
of
cancellation of consolidation proceeding
by
Dist.
Magistrate-held-without
jurisdiction.

Held: Para 26

It is no doubt true that the power vests
in the Deputy Director of Consolidation
or the District Magistrate to annul such
proceedings in view of the decisions that
have been referred to by the learned
counsel
for
the
respondent.
While
exercising powers on the judicial side
they have to confine to the limits of
exercise of such power that is available
to the authorities. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation under Section 44-A would
therefore exercise a power to proceed to
which it is permissible in law and not
beyond the same.
Case law discussed:
1983 RD 249; 1984 RD 180; 1990 RD 115;
1969 RD 329; 1982 RD 142.

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

1. These two writ petitions relate to
a common cause of action for quashing
of the order passed by the District
Magistrate/District Deputy Director of
Consolidation,
whereby
the
said
authority in compliance of the judgment
of this Court dated 27.9.2007, has
disposed of the representation filed by
the respondent No.2 Ajay Kumar Singh
with a direction to the Settlement Officer
Consolidation to proceed with the
consolidation operations afresh from the
stage of preparation of statement of
principles, in so far as it relates to
valuation of plots and proposals of
allotment without effecting the decisions
already taken in relation to the dispute of
title.

2. The petitioners in both these writ
petitions are the the tenure holders of
Village Nuwan Pargana and Tahsil
Anamat District Varanasi who have
come up assailing the orders on the
ground that the order impugned is
against the records and without providing
any opportunity of hearing to the
concerned persons and that the District
Magistrate while exercising powers of
the Deputy Director of Consolidation has
travelled beyond his jurisdiction by
reviewing the earlier orders on account
of illegal political pressures and to the
detriment
of
the
marginal
farmers
specially the Scheduled Caste and other
oppressed
classes.
In
effect
the
contention is that the consolidation
operations that had almost attained
finality was being impeded at the
instance of land Mafias including the
respondent no.2 to the detriment of the
tenure holders at large. The impugned
order being motivated and malafide also
deserves to be set aside as no procedure
prescribed in law has been followed for
the exercise of such powers. It is urged
that through an administrative fiat, the
Collector has proceeded to exercise his
purported powers under Section 48 of the
U.P.C.H.Act,1953 without adhering to
the principles that are applicable for the
exercise of such powers. It is, therefore
submitted that the orders passed by the
District Magistrate on 7.9.2009 as also
the order dated 28.2.2008 recalling the
earlier order be quashed.
1 All] Janardan Singh and others V. D.M. Varanasi and others
365

3. Sri S.K.Pandey was heard for the
petitioner and Sri J.P.Sharma has raised
his submissions on behalf of Ajay Kumar
Singh and the learned standing counsel
for the State authority.

4. Affidavits have been brought on
record from both the sides including the
State and the matter has been heard
finally with the consent of the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the consolidation operations
had reached the level of final allotment of
chak and the persons aggrieved by such
allotments have filed appeals which have
also been disposed of and a few revisions
were pending including that filed by the
contesting respondent Ajay Kumar Singh.
It is therefore submitted that there was no
occasion to intervene and set aside the
consolidation operations reverting them
back to the stage of the Assistant
Consolidation Officer and preparation of
statement of principles.

6. Learned counsel contends that all
actions taken and exercised annulling the
proceedings as aforesaid are unjustified
under the garb of the judgment of the
High Court dated 27.9.2007 in Writ
Petition No. 47530 of 2007. Learned
counsel contends that this Court in the
aforesaid judgment did not issue a
command
for
cancellation
of
the
proceedings up to a particular stage and
there was no material so as to warrant any
such exercise of power by the Collector.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
invited the attention of the Court to the
reports submitted from time to time to
contend that the land was available for
consolidation to the tune of 57% in the
Village and the alleged irregularity if any
was subject to a judicial process as
provided for under the Act itself. The
aggrieved tenure holders have already
adopted the said process including the
contesting respondent and hence there
was no occasion to set aside the entire
proceedings. It is submitted that the
valuation of the land having increased on
account of passing of the National High
Way through the Village, several Land
Mafias including the respondent Ajay
Kumar Singh made all efforts to somehow
the other forestall the consolidation
proceedings and they are also taking
undue advantage of their own acts.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that there was no occasion to adopt this
method and there is no justification for
the cancellation of the entire proceedings.

7. Sri J.P. Sharma learned counsel
for the contesting respondent Ajay Kumar
Singh
contends
that
after
the
consolidation process had been notified in
the year 1991, gross irregularities were
committed in the preparation of statement
of principles and also the provisional
consolidation scheme by the officers
particularly the Lekhpal and the higher
officers who tried to conclude the
proceedings
hurriedly
for
which
allegations have been made against the
Settlement Officer Consolidation . It is on
account of such gross irregularities that a
majority of the villagers represented the
matter before the authorities who failed to
take notice of the same. As a result
whereof they approached this Court and
filed a Writ Petition in which directions
were issued by this Court on 27.9.2007 to
decide the same in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly an inquiry was
conducted
at
the
level
of
the
Collector/District Deputy Director of
Consolidation and after having received
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
the reports, the Collector rightly came to
the conclusion that gross irregularities
have been committed that has resulted in
an
unfair
proceedings
having
been
adopted. Hence the power was exercised
under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H.Act to
cancel the consolidation operations and to
re-initiate the same from the stage of
statement of principles. Sri Sharma has
relied on the decision in the case of
Tarkeshwar Pandey Vs. DDC reported
in 1983 RD 249 to contend that the
Collector was well within his jurisdiction
to have proceeded to invoke the powers
under Section 48 of the Act and he even
otherewise possesses suomotu powers to
doso as well. He has further relied on the
decision in the case of Jaga V. DDC
reported in 1984 RD 180 to contend that
a provisional consolidation scheme can be
interfered with by the Settlement Officer
Consolidation under Section 21(4) of the
Act which power can also be exercised by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation
under the provisions of Section 44-A of
the Act. Sri Sharma has raised an
alternative
argument
that
the
consolidation operations cannot proceed
as the land has been developed to a great
extent over which Abadi sites have come
up and a large scale construction has
already been raised. According to him this
renders
consolidation
operations
impossible in the Village and he has
invited the attention of the Court to the
news
declaration
made
by
the
Consolidation Commissioner published in
Dainik Jagran in Varanasi copy whereof
is Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit
filed in Writ Petition No. 4222 of 2010.
The said news reporting according to him
recites that proceedings have been under
taken for cancellation of the notification
of consolidation under Section 6 of the
U.P.C.H. Act , 1953. He therefore submits
that as a matter of fact no consolidation
should be allowed to proceed at all in
view of the changed circumstances which
have been noticed in the impugned order.
Another argument to support the said
stand has been advanced that the area has
been brought within the municipal limits
of Varanasi and therefore in view of the
law laid down in the case of Maharaj
Singh Vs DDC reported in 1990 RD 115
the
consolidation
of
the
area
is
impossible.

9. With these two alternative
arguments Sri Sharma submits that the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed as
the petitioners have not made out any case
for interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

10. Learned standing counsel with
the help of the affidavit filed on behalf of
the State contends that a full scale inquiry
has been conducted by the Collector and
having found the irregularities, as well as
subsequent
events
and
changed
circumstances existing on the spot, an
order
has
been
passed
that
does
substantial justice between the parties. He
further submits that the U.P. Housing
Board (Awas Vikas Parishad) has also
notified a Scheme in Varanasi for housing
purposes and in such circumstances the
entire proceedings for consolidation have
to be reviewed which can be under taken
only from the stage of preparation of
statement of principles under Section 8 of
the U.P.C.H.Act, 1953. He therefore
submits that the impugned order be not
interfered with at this stage.

11. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties it appears from the facts on
record that the consolidation operations
under U.P.C.H. Act were proposed in the
1 All] Janardan Singh and others V. D.M. Varanasi and others
367
year 1991. The notification under Section
4 of the 1953 Act was issued on 24.9.91.
Objections were invited for settling
disputes in 1994. The revised annual
register and other proceedings after the
preparation of statement of principles
under Section 8 and 8-A was conducted in
1995 and then in the same year a proposal
of the provisional consolidation scheme
under Section 19 read with 19-A was also
notified. The proposed allotment of chaks
began with filing of objections which
were disposed of under Section 21 of the
Act and appeals were preferred. It is at
this stage that complaints were raised and
the consolidation process came to a halt
on account of a criminal case having filed
and at the same time spot inspections
were carried out almost on four occasions.
The pending appeals relating to allotment
were finally decided where after revisions
were
filed
which
are
pending
consideration before the Deputy Director
of Consolidation under the provisions of
Section 48 of the U.P.C.H.Act.

12. In between the respondent Ajay
Kumar Singh and some others appear to
have
approached
the
authorities
at
Lucknow and also the Collector by
moving
a
representation
that
the
consolidation
operations
should
be
concluded only in accordance with law.
The first application dated 15.6.06 that
was moved by the petitioner is Annexure
1 to Writ Petition No. 4222 of 2010.

13. Thereafter respondent No.2
Ajay Kumar Singh approached this Court
by filing a Writ Petition No. 47530 of
2007 which was disposed of on 27.9.2007
by following order:

"Heard
Sri
J.P.Sharma
learned
Advocate, in support of this writ petition.

After hearing Sri Sharma, learned
Advocate and on consideration of the
prayer as made in this petition, this court
is of view that straight way this court
cannot intervene and cannot involve in the
matter as acceptance/rejection of the
petitioners claim is depended on various
factual aspect which is to be better
ascertained and to be taken note by the
collector who happens to be District
Deputy Director of Consolidation.

At this stage Sri Sharma, learned
Advocate submits that the petitioner has
already moved to the collector but he is
not paying any heed to his grievance.

In view of the aforesaid this writ
petition is being disposed of by giving
direction to the learned collector to
entertain petitioner's grievance and to take
appropriate
decision,
after
giving
adequate to everybody, in accordance
with law, with all expedition.

With the aforesaid, this writ petition
stands disposed of.

14. After passing of the said order
another application appears to have been
filed by Ajay Kumar Singh on 8.6.2007
where, for the first time, he raised a plea
before
the
Collector
to
make
a
recommendation to the State Government
for issuing a notification under Section 6
of the U.P.C.H.Act and cancel the
consolidation operations altogether. A
further relief was prayed for that the
appeals that were pending should not be
decided
by
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation.

15. It appears that during the said
period
the
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation decided the appeals against
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
which
revisions
were
filed.
The
Settlement
Officer
Consolidation
submitted reports dated 31.10.2007 and
17.12.2007. The complaint of Ajay
Kumar Singh came to be disposed of on
2.2.2008 and a copy of the said order has
been filed as Annnexure 6 to the writ
petition. The objections filed by Ajay
Kumar Singh were rejected and it was
held that there was no occasion to make a
recommendation
for
cancellation
of
consolidation
process
when
the
consolidation
operations
had
been
completed to the extent of 75%.

16. It appears that an application
was moved that the order passed on
2.2.2008 and the earlier orders were expare and therefore the objections deserve
to be heard again. Accordingly in exercise
of
suo-motu
powers
the
District
Magistrate on 28.2.2008 recalled his
earlier orders dated 1.1.2008 and 2.2.2008
and restored the proceedings relating to
the
miscellaneous
complaint
afresh.
Thereafter the impugned order dated
7.8.2009 has been passed taking into
account the development for the past
more than 10- years and the existing
situation on the spot.

17. Upon having perused the
records the first issue that appears to be
addressed to is the power to be exercised
for implementation of a Scheme under the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953. The Scheme commences after a
notification is made under Section 4 of
the Act . The revision of map has to be
carried out under Section 7. Under
Section 8 the field book, the annual
register and the records have to be revised
and while doing so a survey has to be
conducted and the same is to be done in
consultation
with
the
Consolidation
Committee. Needless to mention that the
Consolidation Committee is a statutory
authority defined under Section 2-AA
which is constituted in terms of Rule 3-A
and has to perform the functions with
regard to the preparation of statement of
principles
in
accordance
with
the
procedure prescribed in Paras 88 to 94 of
Chapter IV of the Chakbandi Manual. The
functions to be performed by the
Committee are also prescribed under
Section
8
itself.
Then
comes
the
preparation of statement of principles
which is the basis to be followed in
preparation and carrying out of the
consolidation operations in the unit. They
relate to the detail of areas to be
earmarked for the purposes as indicated in
Section 8-A of sub section (2). Thus the
role of Consolidation Committee assumes
importance as the entire statement of
principles have to be prepared with the
consultation
of
the
Consolidation
Committee.

18. Needless to mention that the
consultation
of
the
Consolidation
Committee has been held to be mandatory
by this Court in the decisions in the case
of Radha Kishan Vs. Mohd. Matin
reported in 1969 RD 329 (paras 3 and 7
) and in the case of Kedar Nath Singh
and other Vs. DDC reported in 1982
RD 142.

19. After the statement of principles
are prepared then the extracts and record
of the statement are issued through
notices inviting objections from the tenure
holders. The tenure holders there after are
entitled to set up their claim of title,
valuation etc as per the statement of
principles and all such disputes are to be
decided in accordance with the provisions
of Section 9-A and Section 9-B of the
1 All] Janardan Singh and others V. D.M. Varanasi and others
369
Act. The partition of holdings between the
co-sharers can also be effected under the
provisions of Section 9-C of the Act. The
revised annual registers are thereafter
prepared and any party aggrieved by the
proceedings before the Consolidation
Officer relating to the objections has a
remedy to file an appeal under Section 11.
A bar under Section 11-A has been
introduced not to allow objections to be
filed later on if the opportunity afforded is
not availed under section 9 of the Act.

20. Then a third stage arrives where
during the consolidation operations any
transfer effecting the rights or interest can
be revised by moving an application
under Section 12 of the Act and on such
an application being moved any objection
thereto has to be decided in the same
manner as under under Sections 7 to 11
which apply mutatis mutandis.

21. Then comes the stage of
preparation
of
the
provisional
consolidation scheme proposing the actual
allotment of plots. This is done under
Section
19
and
the
provisional
consolidation scheme is prepared under
Section 19-A. This operation brings about
the stage of filing objections to the actual
allotment of plots. The Consolidation
Officer is authorisied under Section 21 to
decide any such objections against which
an appeal can be filed before the
Settlement Officer Consolidation where
after a revision can be preferred before the
Deputy Director of Consolidation under
Section 48 of the Act.

22. The powers to be exercised by
the authorities are clearly defined . The
Settlement Officer Consolidation can set
aside a provisional consolidation scheme
and
issue
appropriate
orders
for
preparation of the same afresh. The
powers to be exercised by the higher
authorities are the same as by the
authorities below them as per Section 44A of the Act. It is in the aforesaid back
ground that the exercise of power in the
present case has to be understood.

23. One of the other arguments
raised by the learned counsel for the
contesting respondent is that the Village
has fallen within the Municipal limits and
therefore it should be excluded from the
consolidation proceedings in view of the
judgment in the case of Maharaj Singh vs
DDC (supra). This has been disputed by
Sri S.K.Pandey learned counsel for the
petitioner by bringing on record the letter
dated 13.7.2009 from the office of Nagar
Nigama, Varanasi appended as Annexure
RA -3 to the Second Supplementary
Rejoinder Affidavit dated 10.5.2010. The
said letter indicates that the Village is not
within the Municipal limits of the
Municipal Corporation, Varanasi but
according to the notification of the Urban
Development Department Govt. of U.P.
dated 30.11.2006, the Village falls within
Varanasi Maha Nagar area. This dispute
does not appear to have been either raised
or
dealt
with
before
the
District
Magistrate when the objection of the
respondent Ajay Kumar Singh was being
considered.

What is noticeable about the plea
raised by the learned counsel for the
respondent is that consolidation is no
longer possible in the area while on the
other hand he defends the impugned order
which
requires
the
consolidation
operations to again commence from the
stage of the Assistant Consolidation
Officer. This alternative objection on the
part of the respondent has to be
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
understood in the light of the fact that the
power
to cancel
a
notification
of
consolidation altogether vests with the
State Govt. under the provisions of
Section 6 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953. This
power can be exercised by the State Govt.
in the circumstances as indicated in Rule
17 of the Consolidation Rules. Section 6
read with Rule 17 are quoted herein
below for ready reference:

"Section
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 (notification) has been cancelled in
respect of any unit under 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.

"Rule 17 - 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 holding 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 the purpose."

24. If the State Govt is apprised of
any
such
inconvenience
being
experienced by the tenure holders, or by
the consolidation authorities, then the
State Govt can exercise such powers for
cancelling
the
notification
of
consolidation operations. In the instant
case what has happened is that the
irregularities
as
alleged
by
the
respondents was made the basis for
forestalling the consolidation operations,
thereby resulting in impeding the process
for more than 10 years. During this
period, according to the impugned order
itself various constructions have been
raised and the topography of the land has
changed, and not only this a large number
of
brick-kilns
are
stated
to
have
flourished. The allotment of land would
not be convenient in the said changed
circumstances. A perusal of the impugned
order indicates that in this situation, the
consolidation is sought to be re-initiated
afresh by preparation of statement of
principles reverting the entire process of
allotment, which had been completed up
till now to the stage of the Assistant
Consolidation Officer . The revisions
which had been filed against orders of
allotment are stated to be pending . With
the exercise of suo-motu powers under
Section
48
of
the
Act,
all
such
proceedings have been initiated without
any decision which has been undertaken
on the judicial side. In such circumstances
in my opinion if the proposal is pending
before the State Govt for cancellation of
1 All] Janardan Singh and others V. D.M. Varanasi and others
371
notification, the State Govt at the first
instance has to exercise its option of
either to continue the consolidation
operation, or cancel the same keeping in
view the reports submitted by the
authorities.

25. Needless to mention that the
criteria given in Rule 17 quoted herein
above is not exhaustive and the State
Govt. in its discretion can cancel the
notification if it comes to the conclusion
that the consolidation operations are
impossible in the area.

26. Coming to the next issue
relating to the argument of the learned
counsel for the contesting respondent that
consolidation
operations
should
commence from the stage of preparation
of statement of principles, it appears from
the affidavit filed by the learned counsel
for the respondent that the Deputy
Director of Consolidation/Collector who
has passed the impugned order, should
have taken this fact into account as to
whether the statement of principles had
been prepared with the consultation of the
Consolidation Committee or without its
consultation. The constitution of the
Committee is defined under Rule 3-A of
the Consolidation Rules. If the statement
of principles have to be modified or
rescinded
then
the
view
of
the
Consolidation Committee shall have a
direct bearing, and the impugned order
does not record any such consultation
with the Consolidation Committee. In
such
a
situation
the
District
Magistrate/Collector was not justified in
straight away proceeding to exercise his
powers
suo-motu
annulling
all
proceedings. The District Magistrate is
also exercising the power of Deputy
Director of Consolidation under Section
48 of the Act and if the revisions were
pending on the judicial he could have
decided the same on the basis of the
material
before
him
including
the
subsequent events that may have been
necessary for the purpose for either
setting aside the order of the Settlement
Officer Consolidation or carrying out of
the consolidation process in accordance
with the statement of principles. It was
not necessary for the District Magistrate
in the given circumstances to have
exercised his suo-motu powers in order to
annul all proceedings including the
judicial process adopted by the parties.
Even otherwise if the District Magistrate
found that the entire process deserved to
be set aside then in such a situation the
District
Magistrate
ought
to
have
proceeded
in
accordance
with
the
procedure prescribed in law and the
powers conferred under Section 48 of the
Act. It is no doubt true that the power
vests
in
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation or the District Magistrate to
annul such proceedings in view of the
decisions that have been referred to by the
learned counsel for the respondent. While
exercising powers on the judicial side
they have to confine to the limits of
exercise of such power that is available to
the authorities. The Deputy Director of
Consolidation under Section 44-A would
therefore exercise a power to proceed to
which it is permissible in law and not
beyond the same. The power of the
Settlement Officer Consolidation under
Section 21(4) as suggested by the learned
counsel for the respondent therefore will
have to be exercised on the parameters
prescribed therein and not beyond that.

27. Accordingly for the reasons
given above the writ petition deserves to
be allowed. The impugned order dated
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
7.8.2009 is quashed . The District
Magistrate shall now forward the entire
documents relating to the plea of
cancellation of notification before the
State Govt. The State Govt shall on
receipt of such documents proceed to
take a decision objectively keeping in
view the larger interest of the villagers
and the reports that have been submitted
from time to time as to whether it is
necessary to cancel the notification
under Section 4 or not. This decision
shall be taken by the State Govt within
two
months
from
the
date
of
presentation of the certified copy of this
order.
The
Principal
Secretary
(Revenue), Govt. of U.P. shall proceed
with he matter in the light of the
observations made herein above and
pass an order in accordance with law.
Needless to say that this has to be done
with the aid of the Consolidation
Commissioner of the State and after
obtaining the views of the petitioners,
the concerned Gaon Sabha, and any
other government department without
being
influenced
by
political
considerations or undue influence of
Land Mafias.

28. In the event the State Govt.
holds that there is no necessity to cancel
the notification then in that event the
District Magistrate/Deputy Director of
Consolidation shall proceed to re-assess
the matter in the light of the observations
made herein above and the provisions
noted for the exercise of such powers.

29. Learned counsel for the
respondent has contended that this
Court has already invoked its power in
the case of Mahendra Prasad Vs.
Consolidation Commissioner decided on
22.11.2005 in Writ Petition No. 336 of
2001 and issued directions to proceed
from the stage of preparation of
statement of principles under Section 8.
In the opinion of the Court it is not
necessary for this Court to under take
this
exercise
itself
in
the
given
circumstances of the present case as
reasoned
out
herein
above.
The
aforesaid decision therefore is of no
avail to the contesting respondent.

30. The writ petition stands
accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
directions.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28519 of 2008

Mool Chand

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Meerut Division &
Others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajiv Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.Z.A.L.R.
Act-Section
157-APermission for sale-by schedule cast
tenure holder to non S.C. Candidaterejected by the authorities-ignoring the
aspect that for payment of loan-open
market shall fetch better market value
than auction sale-held-provision of 157A-enacted for welfare of S.C. But not to
harass them-petitioner given liberty to
sell entire land or any piece of land to
any one even General Candidate-but in
future not entitled to claim allotment of
Gaon Sabha land.