JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - The Petitioners have filed the writ application, on behalf of the villagers of Sininda, P.S. Tirtol in the district of Cuttack, challenging the order of the Director of Consolidation directing amalgamation of some area of village Sininda in village Chatol, purporting to act u/s 7(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Consolidation Ace), thereby effecting change of existing village boundary of village Sininda. 2. Notification was issued under the Consolidation Act bringing the village Sininda under consolidation operation. Six villagers of Sininda, filed an application before the Consolidation Officer praying to include an area of Ac. 17.40 dee. in village Chatol which originally was within the boundary of village Sininda. In the said application, it was indicated that the a ppIicants, though are inhabitants of village Sininda, their homesteads are contiguous to the homesteads of village Chatol and their children are reading in the school of Chatol and they are culturally and socially attached to Chatol. Consolidation Officer after receiving the application filed by the six applicants who have been impleaded as opp. parties 1 to 6 in this writ application, made an enquiry u/s 7(4) of the Consolidation Act read with Rule 16 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' observed as follows: The patch of lands of Sininda proposed to be amalgamated includes Gochar Ac. 0.74 cremation ground A.0. 22, Patita A.0. 4 and village road Ac.0. 44. Even after proposed change of boundary, the main village Sininda will have separate Gochar land to the extent of Ac. 0.29.91, cremation ground Ac. 0,31, village road and cattle path etc. Ac. 1.64 and communal tank Ac. 0.4.36. He further opined: From administrative point of view, the proposed change of boundary will in no way affect the village Sininda and' report of Tahasildar, Tirtol received undoubtedly goes in favour of such change. And in the concluding paragraph he recommended to the Director of Consolidation as follows: ... I am inclined to recommend that the Bedamba bastee with a portion of Bedamba Chaka consisting of 83 hal plots measuring Ac. 14.09 as recommended by A.C.O.H./Ors with a rea statement and trace map be taken out from village-Sininda No. 382 and amalgamated with village Chatol No. 381. I am inclined to recommend that the Bedamba bastee with a portion of Bedamba Chaka consisting of 83 hal plots measuring Ac. 14.09 as recommended by A.C.O.H./Ors with a rea statement and trace map be taken out from village-Sininda No. 382 and amalgamated with village Chatol No. 381. The boundary change proceediugs with area statement, trace map and other particulars are submitted to the Director of Consolidation for approval. 3. In the meantime, the opinion of the Collector, Cuttack was sought for, who opined that Ac. 4.16 decimals of land which includes homesteads, private tanks, Sarada lands, road and Bijesthali of "B::Ita Mahapurusa" of village Sininda should be amalgamated with village Chatol and the justifications of such transfer were indicated as follows: That the house sites of the six applicants of Sininda are contiguous to house sites of village Chatol and are situated at a considerable distance from the main village Sininda. The village road of Sininda hamlet in which six families reside directly connects to Chatol bastee which is used as a main approach to the bus stand; (ii) That the families of the six applicants are attached to village Chatol in their social and cultural activities; (iii) That the village deity 'Bata Mahapurusa' is worshipped by the villagers of Sininda as well as by villagers of Chatol, though the 'Dola Thakura' of village Sininda is brought once a year to the place of 'Bata Mahapurusa' during Dola festival; (iv) That the' villagers of Sininda shall have no difficulty in exercising their communal right in lands and tanks; and (v) That there shall be no administrative inconvenience if the change of the boundaries of these two villages is effected. 4. After receiving the opinion of the Collector and the report of the Consolidation Officer, the Director of Consolidation directed that an area of Ac. 4.16 decimals as indicated by the Collector be bifurcated from the village Sininda and the same be amalgamated to the village Chatol as per the trace map and the land schedule enclosed thereto, to the order. 5. The learned advocate for the Petitioners submits that within the existing village boundaries of village Sininda about 600 families inhabit and the village boundary could not have been changed for the convenience of six families. 5. The learned advocate for the Petitioners submits that within the existing village boundaries of village Sininda about 600 families inhabit and the village boundary could not have been changed for the convenience of six families. It is further submitted that though initially six persons had made the application, two of them have resiled after submitting the application and do not want their properties to be jncltided within the boundary of village Chatol. 6. The learned advocate for the opp. parties on the other hand submits that since the Director of Consolidation, after considering the opinion of the Co11ector, the enquiry report of the S.D.O. and the report of the Consolidation Officer has come to the finding that the Ac. 4.16 dec. which is proposed to be amalgamated in village Chatol, will be for the benefit of the six families and that there will be no administrative inconvenience and that since the Consolidation Act vests authority on the Director of Consolidation to change the village boundaries and the guidelines which has been provided u/s 7(4) of the Consolidation Act read with Rule 16 of the Consolidation Rules have been followed by the Director of Consolidation, the order of the Director of Consolidation should not be interfered with under the writ jurisdiction. The learned advccate for the opposite parties further submits that since there is a provision for revision u/s 36 of the Consolidation Act which is an alternative remedy, this Court should not interfere under the writ jurisdiction when the Petitioners have not preferred revision u/s 36 of the Consolidation Act. 7. The objects and reasons for enacting the Consolidation Act is for introducing a particular piece of legislation for improving agricultural production in the State. The Consolidation Act intends to achive consolidation of scattered holdings and re-arrange the holdings including the fragmented holdings among various land owners to make them more. compact and to provide against future fragmentation of holdings. Evidently, the enactment of the Consolidation Act was for economic farming and applications of improved imp1emen ts and methods of farming. 8. The Consolidation Act intends to achive consolidation of scattered holdings and re-arrange the holdings including the fragmented holdings among various land owners to make them more. compact and to provide against future fragmentation of holdings. Evidently, the enactment of the Consolidation Act was for economic farming and applications of improved imp1emen ts and methods of farming. 8. Section 7(4) of the Consolidation Act is as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Director of Consolidation shall have power to effect changes in the boundary of an existing village and to constitute a new village: Provided that the Director of Consolidation shall, if he deems it necessary for the purpose of this 1mb-section, be competent to effect changes in the boundary of a village situated outside the Consolidation area. The corresponding rule to Section 7(4) of the Consolidation Act which lays down the procedure is Rule 16 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Rules, 1973 reads as follows: Rule 16: Procedure for change of village boundary and constitution of new vilIage envisaged under Sub-section (4) of Section 7: (1) The proceeding for effecting changes in the village boundary or for constitution of a new village shall be started by the Consolidation Officer. At the commencement of the proceeding, he or if authorised by him, the Assistant Consolida6on Officer shall issue a general notice in Form No. 3 inviting objections to the proposed changes in the boundary or to the proposed constitution of the new village, as the case may be, and a copy of the said -notice shall be transmitted to Collector: Provided that when a portion of the village has been or is declared to be a reserve forest. or when a portion of the village is deemed to be a reserve forest under the provision of any law for the time being in force, the changes in the boundary of the village shall be effected according to such declaration or the deeming provision, as the case may be, and it shal1 not be necessary to start proceedings under this rule for effecting such changes. (2) Objections, if any, received within a period of 15 days from the date of service of notice shall be considered by the Consolidation Officer along with the opinion of the Collector, if any, received during the said period. (2) Objections, if any, received within a period of 15 days from the date of service of notice shall be considered by the Consolidation Officer along with the opinion of the Collector, if any, received during the said period. He shall forward the proposal with a summary of objections and the opinion of the Col1ector, if any, to the Director of Consolidation for orders: Provided that when the proceedings are conducted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Sub-rule (1), he shall after consideration of the objections and the opinion of the Collector, if any, submit his proposals to the Consolidation Officer who shall then formulate and forward his proposals with summary of objections and opinion of the Collector to the Director of Consolidation. (3) On receipt of the proposals from the Consolidation Offcer, the Director of Consolidation shall consider the same and pass such orders as he deems fit. 9. On reading Section 7(4) of the Consolidation Act along with Rule 16 of the Rules, it is clear that the Director of Consolidation has the power to change the boundariei of the village. No guideline has been indicated either in Section 7(4) or in Rule 16 as to under what circumstances the Director of Consolidation is vested with the authority to change the boundary of the villages and carved out one of an area from one village to amalgamate with another village. 10. It is true that the statement of objects and reasons for introducing a particular piece of legislation cannot be used for interpreting the legislation if the words therein are clear enough, but it can be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the circumstances which led to the legislation, in order to find out what was the mischief, the legislation wanted to remedy. In ILR 1975 Cutt 843 (Bhikari Sahu and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors.), while interpreting the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, their Lordships have opined that the statement of objects and reasons is certainly not admissible as an aid to the construction of a statute, but it can be referred to for the limited purpose of ascertaining the conditions prevailing at the time which actuated the sponsors of the bill to introduce the same, and the extent and urgency of the evil which it sought to remedy. 11. 11. Since the objects and reasons for which Consolidation Act was enacted was to prevent fragmentation of holdings and to re-arrange the holdings of land in order to make them more compact, the authority which has been vested with the jurisdiction u/s 7(4) of the Consolidation Act read with Rule 16 of the ConsoIidation Rules has to exercise such power in confirmity with the objects and reasons of the Consolidation Act. 12. The main grounds for which the Director of Consolidation has directed the AcA. 16 decimals of land belonging to village Sininda, which also includes homesteads, tanks, roads and the Bijesthali of "Bata Mahapurusa" to be amalgamated with village Chatol, are mainly for the benefit of the six families as those six families are specially and culturally attached to the village Chatol. In our opinion, for these reasons, the Director of Consolidation could not have ordered to change the village boundaries of the village Sininda to include Ac.4.16 decimals of land village Chatol. Though no guideline has been indicated u/s 7(4) of the Consolidation Act and Rule 16 of the Rules and unbriddled power has been bestowed with the Director of Consolidation to change boundaries of village, in our opinion such powers can only be exercised when the reasons are compatible and have direct nexus with the aim and object of the Act. The reasons influencing the Director of Consolidation to effect change of village boundary are extraneous to the aim and object of the Act and Rules. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order of the Director of Consolidation is liable to be quashed. 13. Though it has been submitted by the advocate for the opposite parties that the Petitioners had alternative remedy u/s 36 of the Consolidation Act, since we are of the opinion that the reasonings for change of the map of village Sininda and amalgamation of Ac.4.16 dec. of land of village Sininda with village Chatol are outside the jurisdiction of the Director of Consolidation, the existence of alternative remedy is no bar to exercise of tne jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. For the reasons as stated above, in our opinion, the order of the Director of Consolidation (opposite party No. 7) as per Annexure-4 passed on 2-9-1983 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. 14. For the reasons as stated above, in our opinion, the order of the Director of Consolidation (opposite party No. 7) as per Annexure-4 passed on 2-9-1983 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. In the result, the writ application is allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. A.K. Padhi, J. L. Rath, J. While funy agreeing with my learned sister, I wish to add a few lines regarding the untenability of the reasons adopted by the Director for changing the boundaries of the village. As has been noted in the judgment prepared, the order of the Director was passed upon the view of the Collector which have also been extracted in the judgment. The main thrust of such reasons is that the interest of six applicants, i.e., opposite parties 1 to 6, would be better served by such change. As justification of the same, it was said that if such change would be effected, there would be no administrative inconvenience. I am not persuaded that any village boundary is liable to be changed for such reasons. Change of the boundary for such purpose is also not contemplated in the provisions of the Act. Change of boundary of village as is contemplated under the provisions of Section 7(4) of the Act is only in connection with consolidation operations and hence has to be carried out in that background. The purpose of the Act primarily being consolidation of holding, for development of agriculture and for such purpose also to prevent fragmentation of land a change of boundary of a village can be made only if compliance with such purpose's becomes necessary. The consideration before the authorities should be not that no administrative inconvenience would be caused if the change is effected, but that such change is warranted because of some existing administrative inconvenience. In other words, the boundary could be changed only to remove some real inconvenience in administration and not merely because an application has been filed by six persons desiring such change. The house of the six applicants may not continue to remain with them since they may transfer the same to others. In other words, the boundary could be changed only to remove some real inconvenience in administration and not merely because an application has been filed by six persons desiring such change. The house of the six applicants may not continue to remain with them since they may transfer the same to others. If such a reason is accepted in a blanket manner, it would also be possible to any that so far as the district boundaries are concerned, they are liable to be changed because of applications of some persons residing at the border and feeling it more convenient for them to have their lands included in one district instead of the other, Besides, by the purported change as is desired in the present case, the village deity 'Bata Mahapurusa' will also be in village Chato1 instead of village Sininda, While any change of the village boundary is considered, it has to be done keeping the administrative convenience in view also vis-au vis the fact that in our villages people are more attached to the soil and grow sentimental attachment to their village. People in rural area are not just born to a house but are born to a village and they intrinsically belong to it and identify themselves with it for which reason a variety of human situations come into existence with respect to the village. The purpose of the law cannot be to unsettle such considerations merely to satisfy the needs of a few. Viewed from such light, the authorities vested with the power to effect change of village boundaries have a duty also to consider whether the administrative convenience that may be necessary to change the boundary is of such essential and peremptory nature that it must be achieved even at the sacrifice of such values. From the facts disclosed, Ido not find such factors to have ever entered into consideration of the Director and hence I cannot but agree that the purported change is contrary to law, Ordered accordingly. Final Result : Allowed