Chief Justice's Court
Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 3173 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bundan Khan Respondent :- Consolidation Commissioner Uttar Pradesh And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui,Suresh Chandra Varma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amresh Singh
Hon'ble Dilip B. Bhosale,Chief Justice Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The only prayer made in the writ petition reads thus:
“(I) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 Consolidation Commissioner Uttar Pradesh Lucknow to rescind his earlier order dated 26.7.2016 (contained in Annexure No.4 to this writ petition) for issuance of notification under Section 6(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, rescinding the notification under Section 6(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and Consolidation Commissioner Uttar Pradesh be directed that consolidation in the village should proceed from where it has stopped and be completed at the earliest in accordance with law.”
Though such a prayer is made in the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner, after inviting our attention to Section 6 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (for short 'the Act'), submits that a direction may be issued to the District Magistrate to recommend to the State Government to initiate consolidation proceedings afresh by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act. He did not raise any other contention. We have perused the provisions contained in Sections 6 and 4 of the Act. Section 6 empowers the State Government, at any time, to cancel the notification made under Section 4 in respect of the whole or any part of the area specified therein. Section 4 empowers the State Government, where it is of opinion that a district or part thereof may be brought under consolidation operations, make a declaration to that effect, whereupon it shall become lawful for any officer or authority who may be empowered in this behalf by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation to follow the procedure prescribed therein and after compliance thereof to issue a notification under this provision.
The Division Bench in Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limited Versus State of U.P., 1976 RD page 35, held that notifications issued either under Section 4 or 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:
"........We are firmly of the opinion that when the State Government issues a notification under Section 6, it does not exercise any executive power. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 are both, in our judgment, instances of conditional legislation. The legislature has declared the legislative policy in the preamble of the Act. The power under Sections 4 and 6 must be exercised in furtherance thereof. The time at which and area in respect of which power under Section 4 of the Act or Section 6 would be exercised has been left to be determined by the delegate keeping in mind the objective of the Act........
….....It has provided principles on the basis of which consolidation of holdings has to be enforced and carried out in the State. It has been left to the State Government under Section 4 of the Act to determine the areas in which and the time at which proceedings under the provisions of the Act shall be undertaken. The State Government which is expected to have intimate knowledge of local conditions and complexities has been, by the legislature in its wisdom, left with the duty of determining as to whether in the interest of ‘development of agriculture’ consolidation operations in any particular area can or cannot be undertaken "
The decision was followed in Raja Ram Ojha Versus Consolidation Commissioner U.P. Lucknow, 2015 (126) RD 124 and by the Division Bench in Dalip Singh and others Versus Vikram Singh and others, 2015(6) ADJ 646.
Having regard to the language implied in these two provisions, the question of District Magistrate to recommend to the State Government to initiate consolidation proceedings, in our opinion, does not arise.
In the circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the writ petition. Order accordingly.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 K.K.Maurya/RK (Suneet Kumar, J) (Dilip B Bhosale, CJ)