S.B.SINHA, J.

1. The petitioners in this application have questioned a letter dated 16/07/1992 addressed by the Deputy Secretary of the Revenue and Land Reforms department to the Director Consolidation Bihar Patna wherein the addressee have been directed to postpone the scheme of consolidation operation in the entire State of Bihar purported to be on the basis of a declaration to that effect made by the Chief Minister on the floor of the Legislative Assembly.

2. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of Advocates generally practising in the Directorate Consolidation. The petitioner No. 2 is the President of the said Association.

3. Admittedly the Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has been given effect to by the State of Bihar in large number of village.

4. The following chart will demonstrate the extent of the Consolidation scheme undertaken by the State. Total District u/S. 3 of the Act Total Anchal u/S. 3 of the Act Total Villages Villages notification u/S. 3(1) of Act Area u/S. 3 Villages where scheme u/S. 3 has been confirmed 1 2 3 4 5 6 25 2 22,258 16,014 56.083 Lakh Acre land. 14,826. Villages where delivery of possession took place. Total village where Khatian has been preprepared. Villages R.R. according to chak khatian. Proposed villages under S. 26A of the Act. Actual villages in respect of which notifications under S. 26A have been issued. 7 8 9 10 11 11,904 11,376 4,060 5,390 4,666 @@@

5. From the aforementioned table, it is evident that the Consolidation operation was started in the State of Bihar in a large number of villages and in many of them has come to a close.

6. The Chief Minister of the State of Bihar, however, made a statement on the floor of the legislative assembly that the consolidation scheme shall not be given any further effect in the State. The aformentioned impugned letter dated 16-7-1992 has been issued pursuant to the aforementioned declaration.

7. In this case a counter affidavit was filed by the Respondents at the stage of admission on 18-8-1992 wherein inter alia it has been stated that the implementation of the Consolidation scheme has temporarily been suspended till further decision of the State of Bihar and no final decision had been arrived at. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated:

"That many short-comings of the Consolidation scheme have come in to knowledge of the State Government and therefore, the State Government has taken this temporary decision of suspension of the Consolidation operation for time being, to enable itself to review the whole matter and take appropriate steps. That, it was felt that in spite of colossal expenditure the scheme has not given the desired result, and therefore the Government wants to have full consideration of the matter with open mind with view to identify the short-comings of the scheme and to find out ways to overcome the same and to take final decision regarding future course of action in this regard."

7A. Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as a large number of notifications under Sec. 3 of the said Act have been issued, the State could not pass the impugned order as the notification made under Sec. 3 could have been cancelled only in terms of Sec. 4A thereof. It was further submitted that a notification under Sec. 4A can only be issued for the reasons enumerated in Rule 3 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Rules and not otherwise.

8. It was also submitted that the impugned letter dated 16-7-1992 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application does not even satisfy the requirements of Art. 162 of the Constitution of India.

9. It was further submitted that in view of the suspension of the Consolidation scheme all the adjudicative process with regard to the question of title, preparation of chak and other matters have come to a complete standstill