Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79058 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1763 of 2025 Petitioner :- Harish Chandra And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bijendra Kumar Tripathi,Lokesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Lokesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that village-Chak Afzal alias Pure Leela, Pargana- Sikandra, Tahsil- Phoolpur, District- Prayagraj came under consolidation operation by way of notification issued under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") vide notification dated 9.4.2016. After distribution of C.H. Form 5, objections were filed by the tenure holders including the petitioners. Objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 19.4.2024. Petitioners along with other villagers approached the Consolidation Commissioner with the prayer that the consolidation authorities are not proceeding in proper manner, as such, the village should be notified under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act but authorities have not taken any steps on the petitioners' application dated 8.4.2025. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification of consolidation dated 9.4.2016 published by the State Government (respondent no.1). ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Director of Consolidation, U.P. at Lucknow (respondent no.2) to decide the representation dated 8.4.2025 moved by the petitioner nos.1 to 4 in accordance with law." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the consolidation operation is not proceeding in proper manner in the village in question, accordingly, majority of the villagers are not interested for consolidation operation in the village in question, as such, village in question should be notified under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that the village was notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act about 9 years before but due to tactics adopted by the petitioner along with other villagers, the consolidation operation is not proceeding expeditiously. He further submitted that no interference is required and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that village in question was notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act on 9.4.2016 and parties are availing the remedy for the redressal of their grievance by filing objection / appeal / revision. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner along with others have approached the Consolidation Commissioner for notifying the village under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of Rule 17 of U.P.C.H. Rules will be relevant, 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 Section 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 :- 14.5.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad