Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31274 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 626 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi,Vinay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the notification dated 19.1.2024 and Gazette notification dated 23.3.2024 (Annexure no. 6) issued under Section 4(A) 2 of Consolidation of Holdings Act regarding the village Dabathua, Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Consolidation Commissioner to consider the grievance of the petitioners and pass suitable orders taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 17 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act." 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that earlier consolidation operations were undertaken, which were notified in the village Dabathua, Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut. It is stated that the village has now come under the development area and as such, it is valid ground for denotification under the provisions of Rule 17(1)(a) of U.P.C.H. Rules. It is stated that under the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no rationale for issuance of notification under Section 4(a)(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. It is stated that the issuance of notification is invalid. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2004 3 AWC 2234. 4. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., 1976 RD 35 (DB), the powers exercisable under Sections 4 and 6 of the U.P.C.H. Act are conditional legislation. 5. However, given the provision of Rule 17 of the U.P.C.H. Rules relied upon by the petitioners, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent no.2-Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. at Lucknow to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners. It is directed accordingly. 6. Subject to the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad