JUDGMENT Krishna Murari, J.
1. Heard Sri M.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. Challenge in this petition has been made to the order dated 22.9.2006 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner rejecting the representation moved by the petitioners for cancellation of the consolidation proceedings.
3. The facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the UP. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act') with regard to village in question, was published in official gazette on 3.5.2001. An application dated 9.6.2001 was moved by the petitioners before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation for cancellation of the same on the ground that most of the tenure holders are satisfied and do not want fresh consolidation. A resolution dated 12.1.2005 to the same effect alleged to have been passed by Gaon Sabha was also filed. However, when no action was taken on the said application, the petitioner approached this Court by means of writ petition No. 28565 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.5.2006 directing that petitioners may approach Director of Consolidation by moving appropriate application who shall pass orders thereon in accordance with law within three months from the date of presentation of the application. It is alleged that the copy of the order along with an application was forwarded to the Director of Consolidation by registered post on 30.5.2006 and a reminder was also sent on 6.10.2006. However, instead of Director of Consolidation, Consolidation Commissioner has rejected the representation of the petitioners.
4. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that once this Court directed the Director of Consolidation to decide the representation of the petitioners, the same ought to have been decided by him and the consolidation commissioner had no authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.
5. It has further been urged that when it was found by the Consolidation Commissioner that there was party bandi in the village the consolidation operation ought to have been cancelled. However, he wrongly and illegally rejected the application/representation.
6. In reply, learned standing counsel has tried to justify the impugned order.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Section 6 of the Act empowers the State Government to cancel notification issued under Section 4. Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act prescribes the grounds on which the notification made under Section 4 of the Act, may be cancelled. Rule 17 reads as under;
17. [see Section 6)] _ The notification made under Section 4 of the Act, may among other reasons, be cancelled in respect of the 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 operation inequitable to a section of the peasantry;
(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 map 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 ploughing all the land of the area for this purpose.
9. Apart from other reasons four specific grounds have been specified under the Rules, which can form the basis of cancellation of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The representation/application was filed by the petitioners who are only six in number, mainly on the ground that holdings of the village have already been consolidated and the tenure holders are generally satisfied with the present position and do not want fresh consolidation. However, an application moved by mere six tenure holders of the village cannot be said to represent the will of majority of the tenure holders of the village in question.
10. In any view of the matter, the Consolidation Commissioner called for a report from the Settlement Officer Consolidation who submitted a report that the majority of the tenure holders want fresh consolidation and have moved an application in this regard. Reference in the report was also made to the resolution dated 9.7.2006 passed by the Gaon Sabha. On the basis of the report submitted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the Consolidation Commissioner has rejected representation/application of the petitioners. Since none of the grounds mentioned in Rule 17 were found to be in existence, which may have warranted the cancellation of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the representation/application of the petitioners was rightly rejected.
11. The contention advanced by the learned Counsel for petitioners the since this Court directed the Director of Consolidation to decide the representation of the petitioners as such the Consolidation Commissioner could not have decided the same and the order is without jurisdiction, is misconceived and bereft of merit. Apparently by directing the Director of Consolidation to consider the application of the petitioner the Court intended a responsible authority to investigate into the factual aspects of the matter raised by the petitioners on which cancellation of notification was being sought.
12. The Consolidation Commissioner is higher in hierarchy on the administrative side than the Director of Consolidation. Thus, even though this Court directed the Director of Consolidation to decide the representation of the petitioners, the decision rendered by the Consolidation Commissioner would not make the order without jurisdiction as suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
13. The second argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to party bandi in village in question is also totally devoid of any merit inasmuch as the same does not constitute any ground under Rule 17 for cancellation of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Parti bandi in the village by no stretch of imagination can be said to fall under "among other reasons" mentioned in Rule 17.
14. The Consolidation Commissioner after being satisfied with the report submitted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation rejected the representation/application of the petitioners. The findings recorded by the Consolidation Commissioner in the impugned order relating to the will of the general tenure holders for fresh consolidation are findings of fact, which are normally not open to interference in the writ jurisdiction. Further, no material has been brought on record by the petitioners, which may go to show that the said findings of fact recorded by the Consolidation Commissioner, are without any basis.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine.