JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner.
2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 4.12.2003, passed by the Collector, Agra. A writ of mandamus has also been sought praying for a direction to the respondents not to allot the land of Gram Panchayat to any other person till the finality of consolidation scheme.
3. Petitioner's case is that the village is under consolidation operation. The petitioner had come up before this Court earlier by filing Writ Petition No. 38387 of 2003 praying that the respondents be directed not to allot any land during the pendency of the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This Court by order dated 23.8.2003 disposed of the writ petition which order is being quoted below :
"Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel.
By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to allot any land to any person during the pendency of the revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
In paragraph 5 of the writ petition petitioners have stated that revisions of the petitioners are pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
In view of the fact that petitioners themselves have stated in the writ petition that their revisions are pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is open to the petitioners to move application in the pending revisions. No mandamus in this writ petition can be issued directing that land should not be allotted to any person. If so advised, the petitioners may move appropriate application in pending revisions.
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation."
4. Petitioner has filed an application before the Collector, Agra, on administrative side praying that in pursuance of the order dated 23.8.2003 no allotment of house/ agricultural land be made during the hearing of the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Collector vide impugned order dated 4.12.2003 has dismissed the said application. The Collector has further observed that it will be open to the petitioner Prem Singh to file an application in the pending revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that in view of Sections 5 and 19A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, no allotment proceedings under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, under Sections 195 and 197 can be undertaken. Reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on Section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which is extracted below :
"5. Effect of notification under Section 4 (2).--(1) ...................
(2) Upon the said publication of the notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 4, the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely :
(a) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any Court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceedings is pending, stand abated :
Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving to the parties notice by post or in any other manner and after giving them an opportunity of being heard :
Provided further that on the issue of a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 in respect of the said area or part thereof, every such order in relation to the land lying in such area or part as the case may be, shall stand vacated ;
(b) such abatement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings before the appropriate consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
Explanation 1.--For the purposes of Sub-section (2), a proceeding under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, or an uncontested proceeding under Sections 134 to 137 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, shall not be deemed to be a proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest, in any land."
5. Section 5 (2) provides for the consequence which ensue upon the publication of the notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 4. The proceedings which are contemplated to be abated under Section 5 (2) (a) are :
6. The allotment proceedings under Sections 195 and 197 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act do not come under any of the proceedings as contemplated by Section 5 (2), The proceedings for allotment are neither proceedings for correction of records nor proceedings for declaration of rights or interest or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which the proceedings can and ought to have been taken under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Thus, the proceedings under Sections 195 and 197 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are not affected by Section 5 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings allotment cannot take place is without any substance.
7. The next provision relied by the counsel for the petitioner is Section 19A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which is quoted as below :
"19A. Preparation of provisional Consolidation Scheme by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. -- (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall in consultation with the Consolidation Committee, prepare in the form prescribed a provisional Consolidation Scheme for the unit.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or any other law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for the Assistant Consolidation Officer, where in his opinion it is necessary or expedient so to do, to allot to a tenure holder, after determining its valuation, any land vested in the Gaon Sabha, or any other local authority as a result of notification issued under Section 117 or 117A of the U, P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 :
Provided that where any such land is used for a public purpose, it shall be allotted only after the Assistant Consolidation Officer has declared in writing that it is proposed to transfer of the rights of the public as well as of all individuals in or over that land to any other land specified in the declaration and earmarked for that purpose in the provisional Consolidation Scheme."
8. Sub-section (2) of Section 19A on which reliance has been paced by the counsel for the petitioner itself provides that it shall be lawful for the Assistant Consolidation Officer, where in his opinion it is necessary or expedient so to do, to allot to a tenure holder after determining its valuation, any land vested in the Gaon Sabha or any other local authority. The provision under Section 19A (2) of the Act is only enabling provision which enables the Assistant Consolidation Officer while preparing Consolidation Scheme to make allotment of a Gaon Sabha land after determining its valuation but the said provision cannot be read creating any prohibition to the allotment proceedings contemplated under Sections 195 and 197 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Section 19A also do not help the petitioner in any manner in support of his submission that during the pendency of consolidation proceedings the allotment cannot take place.
9. This Court vide its order dated 23.8.2003 as extracted above only observed that if so advised the petitioners may move appropriate application in pending revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The said order do not entitle the petitioner to approach the Collector by moving an application on administrative side praying for stay of entire allotment proceedings. The Collector has rightly observed in the impugned order that it will be open to the petitioner to move an application in the pending revision as per judgment of this Court dated 23.8.2003. No error has been committed by the Collector in rejecting the application. The order dated 4.12.2003 does not suffer from any error warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed summarily.