Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—A learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 4 February 2016 has dismissed a writ petition preferred by the appellant laying challenge to a notification dated 9 September 2013 under Section 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (1953 Act). The notification dated 9 September 2013 brought to an end consolidation operations which had commenced in the unit in question pursuant to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 6 November 1982. The writ petition itself has come to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge following the law laid down by two Division Benches of this Court and following them a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge on a batch of writ petitions which had held that the issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Act was an exercise of conditional legislative powers and which therefore, did not warrant interference or the issuance of any prerogative writ by the Court in exercise of its powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution. It is this view taken by the learned Single Judge which is sought to be questioned before us in appeal.

2. At the very outset it may be noted that the learned Counsel for the appellant does not question the principles of law as enunciated by the two Division Benches in Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limited v. State of U.P., 1976 RD 35 and Dalip Singh and 3 others v. Vikram Singh and 6 others, Special Appeal (Defective) No. 421 of 2015, decided on 7 July, 2015. Section 6 emobodies a conditional power of legislation upon the State Government or its delegate to bring the curtain down on consolidation operations which may have been commenced in the unit upon it being found that the continuance thereof would not be expedient in the public interest. The consolidation operations themselves are undertaken in a situation where the State Government forms the opinion that fragmented agricultural plots in a unit need to be consolidated in order to create homogeneous and larger holdings with a view to augment agricultural operations. Interference with the notification issued under Section 6 would clearly amount to this Court commanding the State Government to extend and implement a scheme of consolidation in an area even though in its opinion such a scheme can no longer or should not be enforced. The Division Bench in Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limited dealt with this aspect in the following terms:

“There is yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the State which implies to reject the submissions made on behalf of the relief to it. If we were to allow this petition and quash the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, the result would be in substance a direction to the State Government to continue consolidation proceedings in the area in question in spite of the fract that it has not considered it fit to do so in exercise of powers vested in it by the legislature. As already held, the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act are issued by the State Government in exercise of conditional legislative powers. It cannot be conceivably contended that this Court can issue a mandamus to the legislature to legislate on any subject or to apply any law to any area. It was observed by the Supreme Court in The State of Bihar v. Sir Kamleshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252:

“It cannot possibly have been intended that the legislature should be under an obligation to make a law in exercise of that power, for no obligation of that kind can be enforced by the Court against a legislative body.”

3. This Court obviously cannot issue a writ which would make it obligatory upon the State Government to enforce a scheme of consolidation in an area where in its opinion such a scheme should not or cannot be enforced. It would amount to compelling the State Government to exercise its power of conditional legislation. The law as declared by the Division Bench in Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limi