( 1 ). Validity of Rules 4 and 6 (a) (j) (i) to (iii) of the Delhi Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959, is in question in this writ petition.

( 2 ). The petitioners who are three in number, are residents of Village khera Kalan, Delhi and hold bhoomidari rights in respect of agricultural land. They are said to be members of the Gaon Sabha of the said village.

( 3 ). East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of fragmentation) Act, 1948 was enacted to provide for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for preventing fragmentation of agricultural holdings in the State of Punjab and for assignment or reservation of land for common purposes of the village.

( 4 ). The said Act was extended to the Union Territory of Delhi by an appropriate notification on or about 18/12/1951. The Delhi holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1959 were made in terms of provisions of the said Act.

( 5 ). In the years 1952-53, consolidation of land holding in village Khera kalan took place and settlement was effected.

( 6 ). A notification was issued by the Revenue Department of the Delhi administration on or about 22/03/1996 stating: "no. Rev. Est/1175-80/no. F. 22 (l), consolidation/85 - With the object of consolidation holding in the under-mentioned cases for the purpose of better cultivation of Lands herein and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East punjab Act No. 50 of 1948) as extended to the union Territory of Delhi, the Lt. Governor of the national Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to declare his intention to make a Scheme for the consolidation of the holdings in such estates: sl. Name of the Village/estate Madbust Area in Tehsil District no. No. Acres 23. Khera Kalan 57 1892 Delhi Delhi"

( 7 ). The petitioners would contend that no request had been made by the villagers of the said village nor was there any necessity thereof. . It was contended that even no draft scheme was circulated nor objections had been invited as a result whereof their right to file objections were taken away. The amended Rules were issued on 12/06/1996.

( 8 ). The respondent No. 4 allegedly finalised the Consolidation Scheme on 18/06/1999 which, according to the petitioners, had neither been notified nor circulated to the villagers.

( 9 ). Mr. Nandrajog, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, would submit that the impugned Rules cannot be sustained as the said Rules had been made in contravention of the objects of the Act. According to the learned counsel, consolidation in the village in question having been completed in the year 1952-53, there was no necessity of further undertaking the said exercise as by reason of the provisions of the 1948 Act, fragmentation must have been prevented as the same was prohibited thereunder.

( 10 ). The learned counsel has drawn our attention to Sections 14 to 21 of the said Act. It was further submitted that total land in the village was 9082 bigha and 6 biswas out of which land measuring 1385 bighas and 10 biswas was left out of consolidation scheme being the abadi area. Out of the remaining land, 1178 bigha and 11 biswa of land had been notified for acquisition by a notification dated 27/10/1999. It was submitted that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation had further put an attempt for 500 bigha of landing the village and 1500 bigha of land proposed to be further acquired for planned development of Delhi. The learned counsel would contend that there cannot be any legal requirement to carry on the consolidation proceedings only in respect of 4518 bighas of land. It is submitted that the scheme of the Act provides for prevention of fragmentation once consolidation of holdings has been done. Consolidation proceedings under the Act are envisaged as a one-time exercise as the provisions of the Act th