The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the State Government to halt consolidation operations and the constitutional obligation to carry forward land reforms on land consolidation under Article 243G.

Ravi S.Dhavan, J.

1. These proceedings have continued from yesterday. The matter is about cessation of the process and exercise on consolidation of holdings under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. The necessary corollary of this legislation is to prevent fragmentation of agricultural holdings also. The preamble to this legislation reads, "An act to provide for the consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation".

2. The petition challenges the action of the State Government to put a halt to the consolidation exercise intended by the aforesaid legislation. Since this matter had been pending, the State Government is avoiding making any statement to explain how and under what sanction the State Government halted the exercise. The legislative intent is to carry the agragrian reform and complete it. In fact, at one place in the counter affidavit there is even a suggestion that should the petitioner (or any like him) may desire consolidation of their agricultural holdings then they may go to the competent Civil Court to vent their grievance. The question does not arise with Civil Courts having been ousted to deal with this subject and the matter having been left entirely to the Special Courts or Tribunals constituted under the Act. The petitioner can go nowhere except the quasi judicial tribunals mentioned in the Act. A Secretary to the State Government should not have made such an irresponsible statement.

3. With such a defence on behalf of the State the Court required the Government Advocate Mr. S.D. Yadav to explain the action of the State Government, as to from where it drew its power to stop the exercise for consolidation of holdings and prevent fragmentation of them. The answer was not forthwith coming. Time was being sought to place a notification (No. 1166 dated 2.11.1993) to justify the situation that consolidaton of holding was stopped by an executive fiat. The court required the High Court librarian to place the notification before the court. Thus, it frustrated the exercise of granting time to locate the series of notifications at the Secretariat as it was otherwise available at the High Court Library. The notification(s) recite parrot-like that because of certain difficulties the consolidation work in Bihar had been stopped. What the difficulties were have not been specified. It appears to be standardised for all Bihar (then it was Jharkhand inclusive).

4. At this juncture it will be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. To begin consolidation operations in reference to a particular area the action has to be notified (Section 3). Then, till the close of the consolidation operations the process will ensue in the area to which the notification relates (Section 4). The Act also gives discretion to the Government that should an occasion arise then consolidation exercise may be cancelled in respect of the whole or part of the specified area in the notification. Such a notification may also be in respect of any unit of such area. This exercise of halting consolidaton with respect to a specified area, its part or a unit is subject to the final orders relating to correction of land records (Section 4A). Unit is understood as a village or part of a village which the designated authority specifies, section 2(18). But the intention of giving discretion to the State Government for halting consolidation operations temporarily is for a purpose. This is to permit the administrative machinery which is carrying out consolidation operation to consolidate and correct the land records of that area. The power is for specific purpose. Otherwise, there is no power in the State Government that by one stroke of pen it can halt the consolidation operation throughout the State. This will be a direct confrontation between the State Government and an act of the legislature. A situation negating parliamentary democracy. Unfortunately, this situation has existed on the