Dismissed

Ram Pal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2024WRIB/636/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Bench dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a 1995 notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, holding that challenging such notifications is not maintainable as they are legislative in nature and do not affect the petitioner's rights before possession delivery.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the impugned notification was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Ram Pal and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42502

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 636 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Pal And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Basant Lal Yadav,Dileep Kumar Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned notification dated 22.07.1995 published under Section 4 ka(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 relating to initiating consolidation proceedings in village Rahi, Pargana- Hargaon, Tehsil and District Sitapur.

¶8

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Public Interest Litigation No. 2486 of 2015 M/s Runup Gramodyog Evam Sewa Sansthan versus State of U.P. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-

¶9

"2. The issue is no more res integra having been settled way back by a Division Bench of this Court in Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limited Vs. State of U.P. 1976 RD 35. In this case it was held that the notifications issued either under Section 4 or Section 6 of 1953 Act are not in exercise of an executive function but a legislative function. This judgment records as follows:

¶10

"As already held, the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act are issued by the State Government in exercise of conditional legislative powers. It cannot be conceivably contended that this Court can issue a mandamus to the legislature to legislate on any subject or to apply any law to any area."

¶11

3. Referring to Agricultural and Industiral Syndicate Limited case (supra) and Honble Supreme Courts judgment in Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2010) 13 SCC 555, another Division Bench of this Court in Dalip Singh and others Vs. Vikram Singh and others 2015 (5) AWC 4427, observed:

¶12

"5. The provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Agricultural & Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (supra). The Division Bench held that when the Director of Consolidation issues a notification under Section 4 or Section 6, he performs neither a quasi judicial function nor does he exercise an administrative power. In the view of the Division Bench, the power was of a Legislative nature. Moreover, it was held that if a

¶13

notification is issued under Section 6, the land holder has no rights which are affected in consequence of such a notification. The Supreme Court in the judgment in Harbhajan Singh (supra) while considering a similar provision contained in Section 16(1) of the Consolidation Act in the State of Himachal Pradesh held as follows : "It is, thus, clear that it is only when the persons entitled to possession of holdings under the Act have been delivered possession of the holdings that they acquire rights, title and interest in the new holding allotted to them and the consolidation scheme in the area is deemed to have come into force. Till such possession of the allotted land under the consolidation scheme is delivered to the allottees and the consolidation scheme is deemed to come into force, the State Government has the power under Section 16(1) of the Act to cancel the declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act."

¶14

The Supreme Court also held as follows:

¶15

"We have already held that the State Government can issue a notification under Section 16(1) of the Act cancelling the declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act in respect of any area at any time before the persons entitled to possession of holdings under the Act have entered into possession of the holdings allotted to them. Since, before the persons enter into possession of the holdings allotted to them, they do not acquire any right, title and interest in the holdings allotted to them and they do not lose in any manner their rights, title and interest in their original holdings, their rights are not affected by the issuance of a notification under Section 16(1) of the Act. In other words, a notification under Section 16(1) of the Act issued by the State Government before delivery of possession of the allotted holdings to persons has no civil consequences and, therefore, the State Government is not required to follow the principles of natural justice before issuing such a notification."

¶16

6. The principle of law which has been laid down in the judgment of the Division Bench and in the judgment of the Supreme Court is that before persons have entered into possession of the holdings allotted to them, they do not acquire any right, title or interest and they would not lose their rights by the issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Act. That is the position in law. The writ petition challenging the notification under Section 6 of the Act was not maintainable since there were no rights enuring to the benefit of the original petitioners which were taken away or affected by a notification under Section 6 of the Act.

¶17

4. Despite opportunity having been given, learned counsel for the petitioner could not pursued us to take a different view, as he has not even put in appearance.

¶18

5. The writ petition, being devoid of merits, is, accordingly. dismissed. "

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court wherein the Division Bench of this Court after placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that challenging the notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, 1953 is not maintainable since there was no rights enuring to the benefit of the original tenure holder which may have been

¶20

taken away or affected by the notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1953. The notification under Section 4 and 6 is neither a quasi-judicial function nor is an exercise of an administrative power and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied by this Court in the case of Runup Gramodyog (supra), the power is of a legislative nature. The land holder has no rights which are affected in consequence of such a notification.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the present writ petition is devoid of merits hence dismissed .

¶22

Order Date :- 5.6.2024 DiVYa

¶23

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Pal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shambhoo Nath Verma (in Wria- 694/1984, Order Dt. 30-03-1987) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Family Welfare Deptt. and Another

Laxmi Narain Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Dr. Sudhir Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Animal Husbandry Deptt. Lko and Another

Prabhat Kumar Vs Apar Up Ziladhikari, Sadar, Ayodhya and Others

Smt. Sarojani Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao and Others

Rajendra Prasad Dubey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector District Ayodhya and 8 Others