Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4234 of 2018 Petitioner :- Chaudhari Usman Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishore Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following relief:
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to initiate and complete the consolidation operation in Village Agwal Pargana and Tahsil Khurza District Bulandshahar in compliance of Notification dated 29.10.2015 issued by the Consolidation Commissioner U.P. Lucknow."
From the material on record it is evident that the notification has been made on 29th October, 2015. Hence, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in completing the consolidation proceedings.
Be that as it may, writ of mandamus cannot be issued for such a direction. Law in respect of issuance of writ of mandamus has been well settled by the Supreme Court in a long line of decisions. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163, Nain Sukh Das v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 384, and Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif and others, AIR 1962 SC 1210. Having regard to the facts of the case, in my view, no interference is called for.
The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is a complete Code in itself. The petitioner without taking recourse to the provisions of the said Act has rushed to this Court for issuance of writ of mandamus. Recently, the Supreme Court has laid down the law that the High Courts have become very liberal in entertaining the writ petitions for mandamus and now the time has come to curb this tendency by imposing heavy cost. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the authority concerned. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a poor labourer, no cost is imposed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 SKT/-