Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72797 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1273 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gyan Prakash And 4 Others Respondent :- Consolidation Commissionr Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Tiwari,Piyush Kumar Tiwari,Vijaya Nand Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Piyush Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Tarun Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that village-Bagnera, Bagneri, Pargana-Jahanabad, Teshil-Amriya, District-Pilibhit has been notified on 23.03.2024 under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.C.H.Act). Petitioners along with other villagers have approached the authorities for staying further consolidation proceeding in the village in question. Hence this writ petition for the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorarti for quashing the impugned notification published on 23.03.2024 in Uttar Pradesh Gazette for notifying consolidation operation in several villages including village-Bagnera, Bagneri, Pargana- Hahanabad, Tehsil-Amriya, District-Pilibhit so far as the aforesaid village in question is concerned.(Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to consolidation authorities not to proceed further for consolidation process in village-Bagnera, Bagneri, Pargana- Jahanabad, Tehsil-Amriya, District-Pilibhit. (iii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to hear and decide the representation of the petitioners expeditiously within short span of time." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners who are tenure holders of the village in question are not interested in consolidation operation in the village in question accordingly, application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners before consolidation authorities as well as other District authorities with the prayer that consolidation operation should be stayed in the village in question. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that no interference is required in the matter as village has been notified under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act in proper manner as such consolidation operation should be concluded in accordance with the provisions of U.P.C.H. Act. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that village in question has been notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act vide notification dated 23.03.2024. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Rule 17 of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Rules) will be necessary which is as under:- "Rule 17. Section 6. - 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 holdings 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 this purpose." 8. This Court in the case reported in 2016 (131) RD 478, Jasmit Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others has held that the Rule 17 of U.P.C.H. Rules is not mandatory. 9. This Court in the case reported in 2015 (128) RD 666 Dalip Singh and Others Vs. Vikram Singh and Others has held that notification issued under Sections 4 (1) & 6 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act are legislative in nature. 10. Considering the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench as well as Single Bench of this Court on the scope of Rule 17 of U.P.C.H. Rules as well as the scope of writ petition against the notification issued under Sections 4 of U.P.C.H. Act, no interference is required in the matter. 11. The writ petition is dismissed and authorities are directed to conclude the consolidation operation in the village in question expeditiously as well as strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad