PHUL CHAND TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - B No. - 1824 of 2026

Phul Chand Tiwari
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 6 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Mayank Chaturvedi, Surendra Kumar
                                 Chaubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh

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
                                                        WRIB No. 1824 of 2026
                               2


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
                               3


"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
                                    4


(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
                                                                        5


                                    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.



                                                                                            (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    Vandana Y.




Digitally signed by :-
VANDANA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad