Mohd. Yakub vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Heard Ms. Aashuja Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Arvind Kumar Jauhari, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Upendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶11

By means of the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to cancel the notification dated 07.04.2018 issued under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for Village Teliyahi, Pargana Sadar, Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

¶12

The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is the resident of Village Teliyahi, Pargana Sadar, Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh and the publication of first consolidation scheme under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was made on 08.07.1978 and the publication of second consolidation scheme under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was made on 07.04.2018. She further contends that the holdings of Village Teliyahi, Pargana Sadar, Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, have already been consolidated under the first consolidation scheme and have been allotted to the respective persons according to their current possession.

¶13

It is further submitted that the resident of the Village Teliyahi, Pargana Sadar, Tehsil Lalganj, District Pratapgarh made a representation on

¶14

WRIB No. 126 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

20.12.2024 to the Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow seeking cancellation of the notification issued under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on various grounds. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the said representation could not get any result, the petitioner again moved a representation on 01.10.2025 before the Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow, which also could not yield any result. It is further submitted that under the circumstances narrated in the writ petition, the petitioner is facing hardship and as such, a direction may be issued for the disposal of the said representation dated 20.12.2024 in the interest of justice.

¶17

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Runup Gramodyog Evam Sewa Sansthan Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 2486 of 2015. Further, a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case Ram Pal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ-B No. 636 of 2024 has held as under:-

¶18

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:

¶19

"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 notification is issued under Section

¶20

WRIB No. 126 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

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."

¶23

The Supreme Court also held as follows:

¶24

"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

¶25

WRIB No. 126 of 2026

¶26

4

¶27

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."

¶28

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.

¶29

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has further submitted that he has no objection to the extent that a direction be issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the representation dated 20.12.2024 pending before the learned Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow.

¶30

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition, without entering into the merits of the case,

¶31

WRIB No. 126 of 2026

¶32

5

¶33

with a direction to learned Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 20.12.2024 in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶34

With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶36

February 18, 2026

¶37

Virendra

¶38

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Yakub v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Yakub v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sushma Devi vs Rajneesh

Ayushi Singh vs Dharmendra Kumar

Devi Prasad @ Devi Prasad Verma and others vs Add. District Judge-7, Lucknow and others

Hari Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Jamaluddin Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others

Ram Shakal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and Others