HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 1824 of 2026 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Chaubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C.V.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned Counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Village Beraspur, Uparwari, Tehsil Gyanpur, District Bhadohi was earlier brought under consolidation operation sometimes in the year 1964 and the notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act was issued in the year 1979-1980. The Village in question has again notified under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act by way of notification dated 5.6.2024. Petitioner along with the other villagers have represented before the authorities that they are not interested for consolidation opertion in the Village in question, as such, notification issued under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act should be cancelled but no steps has been taken by the authorities. Hence the instant petition on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to produce the notification dated 5.6.2024 under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act for perusal and quashing and same may kindly be quashed. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to proceeding pursuant Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mayank Chaturvedi, Surendra Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh Phul Chand Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) to the notification dated 5.6.2024 under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act in Village Beraspur, Uparwari, Tehsil Gyanpur District Bhadohi." 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed the provisions contained under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act in order to demonstrate that notification under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act cannot be issued unless the conditions mentioned under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act are complied with. He submitted that petitioner could not be able to obtain the copy of the notification, as such, State authorities be directed to produce the copy of the notification dated 5.6.2024 issued under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act. He submitted that in view of the provisions contained under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rule 1954 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Rules, the notification issued under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act should be cancelled. 4. On the other hand, Mr. C.V.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned Counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha submitted that no interference is required against the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act. They submitted that second consolidation operation has intervened in the Village in question after about 45 years from the date of denotification of earlier consolidation operation, as such, there is no illegality in the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act in the Village in question. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that first consolidation operation was completed in the Village in question in the year 1979-1980. There is also no dispute about the fact that second consolidation operation has started in the Village in question by way of notification dated 5.6.2024 issued under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act and Rule 17 of the U.P.C.H. Rules will be relevant which are as under:- WRIB No. 1824 of 2026 2 "Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act- 4- Declaration and notification regarding consolidation.-(1)(a) The State Government may, where it is of the opinion that a district or part thereof may be brought under consolidation operations, make a declaration to that effect in the Gazette, whereupon it shall become lawful for any officer or authority who may be empowered in this behalf by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation- (i) to enter upon and survey, in connection with rectangulation or otherwise, and to take levels of any land in such area; (ii) to fix pillars in connection with rectangulation, and; (iii) to do all acts necessary to ascertain the suitability of the area for consolidation operations. (b) The District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause public notice of the declaration issued under clause (a) to be given at convenient places in the said district or part thereof. (2)(a) When the State Government decides to start consolidation operations, either in an area covered by a declaration issued under the sub-section (1) or in any other area, it may issue a notification to this effect. (b) Every such notification shall be published in the Gazette and in a daily newspaper having circulation in the said area and shall also be published in each unit in the said area in such manner as may be considered appropriate." "Rule 17 of U.P.C.H. Rules- 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; WRIB No. 1824 of 2026 3 (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. Coordinate Bench of this Court in batch of cases, leading Writ Petition No. 337 of 1990 (Rajaram Ojha vs. Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow & others) decided on 31.03.2014 reported in 2015 (126) RD 124, has held that notification issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the U.P.C.H. Act are conditional legislation and the same cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relevant paragraph nos. 8 & 9 of this judgment is quoted hereinunder :- "8. Coming to the authorities cited on behalf of the State, it is appropriate to refer to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the Case of the Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limited v. State of U.P. 1976 RD 35. In this case it was held that the notifications issued either under section 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are not in exercise of an executive function but a legislative function. This judgment records as follows "As already held, the notifications under section 4 and 6 of the Act are issued by the State Government in exercise of conditional legislative powers. It cannot be conceivably contended that this Court can issue a mandamus to the legislature to legislate on any subject or to apply any law to any area. It was observed by the Supreme Court in The State of Bihar v. Sir Kamleshwar Singh MANU/SC/8741/2006:- "It cannot possibly have been intended that the legislature should be under an obligation to make a law in exercise of that power, for no obligation of that kind can be enforced by the Court against a legislative body." Similarly, this Court could not pass an order which would make it obligatory on the State Government to enforce the scheme of consolidation in an area where in its opinion such scheme should not be enforced. It would amount to compel the State Government to exercise its powers of conditional legislation." WRIB No. 1824 of 2026 4 9. The Second judgment relied upon by the State is Dev Nath Kewat v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1990 RD 175. This judgment, relying upon the ratio laid down in the case of Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limited (supra), has held as follows :-- "The scope of writ of mandamus is by now well settled that unless there is some denial of the statutory duty cast upon the State and authority and the State has refused to carry out the statutory duty, in that event writ of mandamus cannot be issued. In the instant case by refusing to issue notification under section 6(1) of the Act it cannot be said that the State Government has refused to carry out any statutory duty imposed upon it. In such matters no writ of mandamus can be issued. However, it is open to the petitioners to approach the State Government with their representation if so advised." 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 & 6 of U.P.C.H. Act, no interference is required in the matter. 12. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. 13. No order as to costs. May 12, 2026 Vandana Y. WRIB No. 1824 of 2026 5 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad