Heard Sri Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
The challenge in this petition is to the cancellation of the notification of the consolidation proceedings invoking powers under Section 6 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
Sri Pandey submits that the cancellation has proceeded on wrong assumptions of fact and law both. His first submission is that the power which has been exercised under Section 6 is not by a competent authority, inasmuch as, it should have been done only by the State Government. His second submission on merits is that keeping in view the calculation of the agricultural land available as contained in the reports of the consolidation authorities themselves the land was very much available for consolidation and therefore the percentage calculated is wrong.
I have perused the report dated 18.5.2010 as also that of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 3rd September, 2011 which have been brought on record. The said material appears to have been the basis for proceeding to issue the notification, cancelling the consolidation operations. The report of the Settlement Officer Consolidation which is in no way different from the report of the Consolidation Officer is to the following effect:
^^xzke dh HkkSxksfyd fLFkfr fuEuor gSA xzke rhu rjQ ls jkIrh unh ls f?kjk gSA xzke dk lEiw.kZ {ks0 412&642 gs0 gS ftlesa ls 42&452 unh ds dVku o ok<+ ls izHkkfor o 198&580 gs0 rFkk nh?kZdky rd ty Iykfor {ks=Qy 58&775 gs0 gSA pdcUnh ;ksX; {ks0 132-472 gs0 gh gSA tks yxHkx 32 izfr'kr gh gSA pdcUnh eSuqvy esa nh x;h O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj fdlh xzke dh pdcUnh ;ksX; {ks=Qy 40 izfr'kr ls de gS rks pdcUnh ;kstuk ykxw fd;k tkuk lehphu ugha gksxkA vLrq unh ds dVku] ty Iykou o xqVcUnh rFkk 40 izfr'kr ls de d`f"k ;ksX; Hkwfe gksus ds dkj.k xzke dks tks0p0vf/k0 dh /kkjk 6¼1½ ds vUrxZr izLrko funs'kky; rRdkyhu ftykf/kdkjh egksn; }kjk i=kad [email protected] fnukad 31 ebZ] 10 ls izsf"kr fd;k x;kA^^ The said report has been accepted for passing of the order on the basis of the material which was available before the authority.
The argument raised on behalf of Sri Pandey that it is founded on an alleged miscalculation by the authorities, could have been appreciated if something otherwise could be shown to the court in the shape of any other calculation. In my opinion, if the same calculation is being relied upon by the petitioner, then there does not appear to be any perversity or any error in the report which was submitted and which has been made the basis for the issuance of the notification under Section 6.
There are also indications of factionalism in the village which can also be made the basis of cancellation as per Rule 17 of the 1954 Rules.
So far as the exercise of power is concerned, the notification under Section 6 itself clearly recites the delegation of the powers by virtue of a notification dated 19th October, 1956 under which the said powers have been exercised.
Apart from this, Rule 17 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 have to be observed for the purpose of issuing such a notification. In my opinion, the report which was submitted and which has been made the basis for cancellation conforms to the ingredients of Rule 17 of the 1954 Rules. Accordingly, none of the contentions raised have any substance.
There is no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.1.2012 Sahu