Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76489 Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1817 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prem Narayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Singh Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the gaon sabha. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to call upon the records and directing the respondent no.2 i.e. Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow to consider and decide the representation / grievance dated 6.4.2015 and 7.3.2025 (Annexure Nos.2 & 3 to the instant writ petition) moved by the petitioner through registered post; expeditiously within a short stipulated period. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.2 to stay the further consolidation proceeding." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner along with other villagers of the village have filed a representation before respondent no.2/ Consolidation Commissioner for notifying the village under Section 6 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") in view of the averment made in the representation. He further submitted that no steps has been taken by the Consolidation Commissioner on the basis of representation dated 6.4.2015. He placed reliance upon the following judgement of this Court in support of his argument: "i. 2009 (108) RD 40, Parasnath vs. State of U.P. and others. ii. Writ-B No.1334 of 2019 (Yogendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others)." 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Singh Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the gaon sabha submitted that the village in question has been notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act in the year 2015 but due to hindrance created by the petitioner along with other villagers, consolidation could not be proceed in the village in question. They further submitted that no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the village in question has been notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act on 10.1.2015. 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 & 6 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 :- 12.5.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV 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 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 Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad