Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85797 Reserved On:6.5.2025 Delivered On:21.5.2025 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 28219 of 2012 Petitioner :- Sipahi And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh,Sharda Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- A.K.Singh,A.L. Tiwari,Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,R.C. Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that village- Taraon, Pargana- Khanpur, District- Ghazipur under operation of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act) by way of notification issued under Section 4 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act dated 22.8.2002. Publication under Sections 8 & 9 of U.P.C.H. Act was made on 31.5.2013 and 6.12.2003. Publication under Section 10 of U.P.C.H. Act was made on 13.6.2005. Tenure holders of the village had filed their objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. According to petitioners respondent no.3/ Assistant Consolidation Officer proceeded to prepare and published the provisional consolidation scheme under Section 20 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act on 21.2.2011 without making inquiries from the tenure holders as well as without consulting the members of the Consolidation Committee in preparation of provisional consolidation scheme. According to the petitioners, consolidation authorities have committed irregularities and illegalities in the cases of 90% of the tenure holder / chak holder of the village by increasing and decreasing the areas and valuation of their land. Petitioners have availed the remedy of objection, appeal and revision before the consolidation authorities. Petitioners have filed stay application in the revision in which initially the interim order was granted but on the subsequent date, the interim order was not extended. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 21.3.2012 refused to recall the order dated 2.1.2012. Hence this writ petition for the following relief: "It is, therefore prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the publication of the provisional consolidation scheme in the village in question on 21.2.2011 and the orders dated 21.3.2012 (annexure no.6) and 2.1.2022 (annexure no.4) passed by respondent no.2, the application filed by the petitioners dated 2.11.2011 (annexure no.2) be allowed and further proceedings pending before the consolidation officer, Saidpur, Ghazipur consequent to illegal preparation and publication of the provisional consolidation scheme on 21.2.2011 be stayed for the pendency of the revision filed by the petitioners (revision no.1393 of 2011) before respondent no.2 and any other/ further writ direction or order be issued which the Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 3. This Court vide order dated 31.5.2012 entertained the matter and stayed further proceeding of revision no.1393. In pursuance of the order dated 31.5.2012 State has filed his counter affidavit and petitioners have filed their rejoinder affidavit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the consolidation authorities were not proceeding in proper manner as well as in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 19-A (1), 20 (1), 48 (B) of U.P.C.H. Act and Rules 46 & 47 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Rules"). He further submitted that under the impugned orders, Deputy Director of Consolidation has proceeded to decide the stay application in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that respondent no.3 / Assistant Consolidation Officer had proceeded arbitrarily in preparation and publication of provisional consolidation scheme without following the mandatory provisions of U.P.C.H. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that the notices of the extract of provisional consolidation scheme to the tenure holders of the village has not been issued according to the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act which is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the grave irregularities and illegalities have been committed by the consolidation authorities by increasing and decreasing the areas and valuation in the provisional consolidation scheme in respect to the tenure holders / chak holders, as such, the entire proceeding is vitiated. He further submitted that the provisions contained under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Manual has not been followed by the consolidation authorities. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1982 RD 142, Kedar Nath Singh and Others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and Others in support of his argument. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners cannot be entertained, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that due to the interim order granted by this Court, the entire consolidation proceeding of the village in question is held up. He further submitted that the instant petition has been filed by nine petitioners but there is no land in the name of petitioner no.9 or their predecessor in the village in question but in order to delay the consolidation proceeding in the village, the instant petition was filed in the year 2012. He further submitted that if the petitioners have any grievance they have full remedy during consolidation operation to file objection, appeal and revision rather writ petition directly before this Court. He further submitted that there are 983 chak holders in the village in question. He further submitted that no irregularities or illegalities had been committed by the consolidation authorities as mentioned in the writ petition rather the authorities were proceeding according to the provisions contained under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that under the impugned order dated 21.3.2012 no prejudice has been caused to petitioners, as such, the same cannot be challenged before this Court by way of writ petition. He further submitted that no interference is required in the matter and writ petition is liable to be dismissed 6. Several impleadment applications and stay vacation applications along with counter affidavit have been filed in the instant petition stating that except the petitioners other villagers are interested in the consolidation operation in the village in question and they have no grievance regarding the consolidation operation which is going on in the village in question. It is also mentioned in their affidavit that provisional consolidation scheme has been prepared in strict adherence of the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the village in question was notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act on 22.8.2002 but village has not been de- notified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act due to the grant of interim order in the instant petition. 9. Perusal of the averment made in paragraph nos. 3, 4 & 8 of the counter affidavit of state demonstrate that authorities were proceeding according to the provision contained under the U.P.C.H. Act and rules framed thereunder. 10. Under the impugned order dated 21.3.2012, which has been challenged by the petitioners in the instant writ petition, further date has been fixed by the revisional Court, as such, there is no case for interference by this Court against the impugned order by which the date has been fixed for hearing of the revision. 11. Under the U.P.C.H. Act full procedure has been prescribed to the tenure holders to file objection, appeal and revision for the redressal of their grievance, the provision has also been made under Section 9-B of U.P.C.H. Act for filing objection against the statement of principle, as such, filing of writ petition by the some of the villagers against the interlocutory order passed in the revision as well as for quashing the provisional consolidation scheme in order to held up the entire consolidation proceedings in the village in question is total abuse of process of law. 12. The case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners will not be applicable in the facts and circumstrances of the instant case. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, there is no scope of interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect to the relief claimed in the instant petition. 14. The writ petition is dismissed and the consolidation authorities are directed to proceed with the consolidation operation in the village in question expeditiously and strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act. 15. No order as to Costs. Order Date :- 21.5.2025/Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad