Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10143 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 143 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Upendra Singh learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 4. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 29th July, 2019 passed under Section 6 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953. Learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition in view of judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench in Writ B No. 636 of 2004, Ram Pal and others versus State of U.P. and others in which after consideration of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench judgments, it has been held that notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act are legislative in nature against which petition is not maintainable. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment in the case of Ram Pal and others (supra) is as follows:- "3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court wherein the Division Bench of this Court after placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that challenging the notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, 1953 is not maintainable since there was no rights enuring to the benefit of the original tenure holder which may have been taken away or affected by the notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1953. The notification under Section 4 and 6 is neither a quasi-judicial function nor is an exercise of an administrative power and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied by this Court in the case of Runup Gramodyog (supra), the power is of a legislative nature. The land holder has no rights which are affected in consequence of such a notification." In view thereof, it is evident as has been held that notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Consolidation and Holdings Act are neither quasi judicial nor administrative and are in fact in exercise of legislative powers in which the land holder has no rights which are affected in consequence of such notification against which a petition is not maintainable. In view of such judgment, the impugned order having been passed under Section 6 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the petition is held not to be maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench