The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the facts pertaining to the relevant provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, before curtailing the right and liberty of a citizen to deal with their own property.

The unsuccessful petitioners in CWJC No. 5034 of 2003 are the appellants.

2. The facts that are relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:

3. Lachhami Rai, the 3rd respondent is the owner of the land situated in village Matiyara Tok, Cirlce-Lalganj, District, Vaishali. He executed two gift deeds on 10.12.1996 in favour of the appellants. The 2nd respondent submitted an objection petition before the District Magistrate, Vaishali-1st respondent herein, stating that the two gift deeds referred to above were executed in contravention of the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’). The 1st respondent took up the matter and passed an order dated 08.09.1997 setting aside the deeds of gift and imposing penalty of Rs.250/- on the petitioners.

4. Aggrieved by that, the appellants filed CWJC No.11119 of 1997. The writ petition was disposed of on 08.03.1999 remanding the matter to the District Magistrate observing that the order dated 08.09.1997 is bereft of any reasons. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 30.09.2002 taking the view that the order dated 08.09.1997 does not warrant any modification. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the appellants filed CWJC No.5034 of 2003. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through the order dated 07.08.2012. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.

5. Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that neither the 1st respondent; nor the learned Single Judge have recorded any finding as to the existence of any Notification, referable to Section 10 of the Act and simply the provisions contained under Section 5 of the Act were applied. He contends that the sole basis for the 2nd respondent to initiate proceedings was that the Notification under Section 3 of the Act for consolidation of the holdings was issued for the area and there was not even a whisper about any order, passed under Section 10 of the Act. He contends that a citizen has the right and liberty to deal with the property as per his wishes and as such a right can be curtailed only when the circumstances contemplated under the relevant provisions of law are proved to be existing. He submits that while the 1st order passed by the District Magistrate was bereft of any reason, the 2nd order did nothing more than put a seal of approval on the 1st one.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that operation contemplated under the Act is very comprehensive and important, and obviously for that reason, the prohibition of different kinds, be under Sections 4 or 5 of the Act, are imposed during the process of such operation. They submit that the learned Single Judge was satisfied that the gift deeds in favour of the appellants were executed at a time, when the prohibition, under the Act, was in force and that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference.

7. Agrarian reforms introduced in the State of Bihar are substantially different from those taken up by other States. Except for minor differences as to the details, the general pattern is to confer rights of ownership on the tenants or to restrict the extent of lands that can be owned by a family or individual. In addition to taking such steps, the State of Bihar has undertaken the work of consolidation of holdings. The object is to ensure that agricultural lands are not fragmented to small bits rendering the agriculture unviable or uneconomic. A detailed and complicated process of consolidation of holdings is provided for, under the Act. Thereafter draft scheme under Section 11 is required to be prepared. Once objections are received to the draft scheme, final scheme is to be prepared and published after obtaining approval of the Director of Consolidation under Section 13 of the Act.

8. Having regard to the fact that the process of consolidation would result in change of ownership by operation of law, in respect of certa