Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29901 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 773 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lalaram And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amish Kumar Srivastava,Surabhi Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sher Bahadur Singh Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing at length and Mr. Prabhooti Kant Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has come up with a prayer that a mandamus be issued to the Consolidation Commissioner, U.P. , Lucknow directing the cancellation of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 relating to Village Barah Mohabbatpur, Post Office Dhakiya Waqha, Pargana Nigohi, Tehsil Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur. The case of the petitioners is that in 2010 the village was notified under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. After publication, the authorities, under the Act, acted with grave irregularities in the issue of Form 2A and 5. The petitioners had instituted Writ-B No. 66836 of 2011, though it is not indicated for what purpose. This Court issued a direction to the respondents on 07.02.2012 permitting the petitioners to approach the Consolidation Commissioner for the redressal of their grievances. The petitioners did approach the Consolidation Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner Consolidation sent a letter dated 19.04.2025 to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation in the matter about the petitioners' concerns that pertain to irregularities at the preliminary stages of consolidation. It is the petitioners' case that the village has rivers flowing all through its territory and more than 80% of the land is affected by rivers. There are more than 100 farmers who would be adversely affected by the consolidation. Reports in this regard have already been submitted by some authorities. It is on all these grounds that the petitioners desire us to issue a mandamus to cancel the notification issued under Section 4 way back in the year 2011. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. Prabhooti Kant Tripathi and Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, what we find is that the decision to notify the consolidation operations in a village is essentially a policy decision for the Government which, when taken, carries legislative force. It is not merely an administrative decision or order. Therefore, a challenge to the issue of a notification under Section 4 or for that matter its cancellation under Section 6, must be on the same grounds as a challenge laid to a legislation enacted by Parliament or the legislature of a State. It cannot be impeached on grounds on the foot of which an administrative order of the Government is assailed. This position of law is well settled in view of the Bench decision of this Court in Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate Limited vs. State of U.P., 1975 SCC OnLine All 521, which has been followed by a learned Judge of this Court, sitting singly, in Raja Ram Ojha vs. Consolidation Commissioner, U.P, Lucknow, 2014 SCC OnLine All 15410. There is then again a Bench decision of this Court in Vishvadev vs. Director of Consolidation and others, Neutral Citation No. 2016:AHC:182608-DB. The consistent authority does not spare a shadow of that the decision to notify a village under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is not justiciable, unless it be ultra vires on parameters akin to those on which a legislation may be invalidated. There is no such scope to question the notification under Section 4 issued by the Government. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Brijesh Maurya Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad