Neutral Citation No. -2025:AHC-LKO:15776-DB RESERVED Chief Justice's Court Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 152 of 2025 Petitioner :- Chin Guddu Respondent :- State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondents no.1 to 5 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.6-Gaon Sabha. 2. The instant petition has been filed in public interest seeking quashing of the part of Notification No.4691/G-610/2006 dated 28.02.2009 by which the Village Panchayat-Udharna Thakurain, Payagpur, District Bahraich was placed under consolidation operation in terms of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Notification under Section 4(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953, was issued on 28.04.2009. It is also urged that many of the chak holders of the petitioner's village are satisfied with their land holdings and they do not wish that the consolidation operation may continue. 4. It has further been urged that several representations were given to the State Authorities by a large number of villagers, however, no action has been taken. It has also been urged that the map of the neighbouring villages are not available and their boundaries are also unidentified. The villagers of the said neighbouring villager have also questioned the consolidation proceedings and in their case notification under Section 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 was issued, as a consequence, the consolidation operations in village Kanchchar, Shekhapur, Sultanamafi and Sohariyawan have been de-notified and similar de-notification must be made in respect of the petitioner's village too. 5. It is further submitted that the procedure as prescribed in Rule 17 framed under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rule, 1954 has also not been followed and for the aforesaid reason the notification under Section 4 dated 28.02.2009 published in the Gazette on 18.04.2009 may be quashed. 6. Learned Standing Counsel as well as the counsel for the Gaon Sabha have raised an issue of maintainability. It is urged that neither the pleading indicates any personal right of the petitioner is affected nor his credential have been disclosed as required in terms of Chapter XXII Rule 3-A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 7. It has further been pointed out that in the entire pleading, there is nothing to indicate that what is the status of the consolidation operations, especially when the notification was issued in the year 2009 and mere vague allegations have been made. In such circumstances, this Court may not entertain the petition which even otherwise is not maintainable as it has been held by this Court that writ petition challenging the consolidation notification under Section 4 and 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is not maintainable. 8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 9. At the outset, it may be noticed that this Court in M/s Runup Gramodyog Evam Seva Sansthan Vs. State of U.P.,(2022) 155 RD 497 had the occasion to consider the issue of maintainability of petition seeking cancellation of notification under Section 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 and by taking note of the earlier decision in Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Vs. State of U.P. 1976 RD page 35, it was held that the petition challenging notification under Section 4 and 6 is not maintainable. There are other decisions on this point in Dalip Singh and others Vs. Vikram Singh & others (2015) 128 RD 666 (DB) as well as Dinesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2015 (33) LCD, page 1300 (LB) and Raja Ram Ojha Vs. Consolidation Commissioner 2014 (32) LCD page 2157 (LB) and in all the aforesaid decisions, it has been categorically held that writ petition seeking cancellation of notification under Section 6 is not maintainable. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid legal position, as noticed in the aforesaid judgments, accordingly this Court is of the clear view that the instant petition whereby the petitioner seeks cancellation of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 dated 18.04.2009 is not maintainable. 11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.03.2025 ank (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench