Connect with writ petition no. 41563 of 2010 (Pratap Singh & others versus State of U.P. & others).
Heard Counsel for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for the parties.
Standing Counsel is directed to file counter affidavit within four weeks. The petitioners shall have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List immediately thereafter.
Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sharad Mandhyan has submitted that notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act was issued on 10.07.1980 for initiation of consolidation proceeding in the village in question but after a lapse of 30 years the notification under Section 6 of U.P.C.H. has been issued on 15th June, 2010 by Consolidation Commissioner, whereby the notification under Section 4 has been canceled.
It is further submitted that in pursuance of notification dated 10.07.1980 the consolidation proceeding in the village in question has been started much earlier and by the year 1992 objection in respect of allotment of chak etc. has also been decided under Section 21 of U.P.C.H Act and delivery of possession to the chak holders has also been taken place much earlier and after a lapse of about 30 years it is not open for the Consolidation Commissioner to exercise the power of Section 6 of U.P.C.H. Act and cancel the aforesaid notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H Act issued on 10.07.1980. As a result of which entire proceeding has been disturbed by putting huge irreparable loss to the various chak holders.
In this view of the matter, I am of prima facie opinion that such notification, unless there is a compelling reason for cancellation of consolidation proceeding, ought not to have been issued by Consolidation Commissioner under Section 6 of U.P.C.H Act after a lapse of 30 years. Accordingly, as interim measure the effect and operation of order dated 25.05.2010 passed by Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow issuing notification under Section 6(1) of U.P.C.H. Act shall remain stayed until further orders of the Court.
Order Date :- 6.8.2010 arun