J.L.KAPUR, J.

(1) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High court of Allahabad on a certificate granted under Arts. 132 and 133(1)(c) of, the Constitution. The respondent herein was the petitioner in the High court in one of the petitions which were filed in that court covering the question which has been raised before us. The appellants before us were the respondents in the High court.

(2) THE respondent was the Ruler of the State of Bharatpur, now a part of Rajasthan, and is the owner of the property in dispute known as Kothi Kandhari Jadid in Agra. On 28/01/1950, the Agra Improvement Trust-hereinafter called the Trust passed a resolution under s. 5 of the U.P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948, (U.P. XXVI of 1948)-hereinafter called the Act-for the acquisition of the property in dispute and expressed its willingness to act as ` builder ` within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. The government declared the Trust as the ` builder ` on 6/05/1950, and an agreement was entered into on 6/11/1950, in terms of the Act, which was published on 6/01/1951. The Trust deposited a sum of Its. 57,800 being the estimated cost of the acquisition on 27/02/1951, and a notification under s. 7 of the Act was published in the U.P. Gazette on 21/07/1951. By sub-s. (2) of s. 7, upon the publication of the notification, the land acquired was to vest absolutely in the State. After the respondent was served with a notice calling upon him to appear before the Compensation Officer at Agra, he filed certain objections challenging the propriety of the acquisition and the vires of the Act. It was also alleged that the Collector, without deciding the matter, proceeded to take possession. The respondent, thereupon, filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High court for a writ prohibiting the appellants from acquiring his land or interfering with his rights. This petition was dismissed by the High court on 2/02/1954. But certain findings were given to which the appellants have taken objection. In its judgment the High court observed :- ` In these petitions the prayer is that the court may be pleased to grant a writ, direction or other suitable order prohibiting the State government from acquiring the petitioners land or interfering with their rights in any other manner, and to grant such other suitable relief as the court may deem fit. At the hearing, however, learned counsel for the petitioners stated more Specifically that the relief which the petitioners sought was a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the State governments Notification under section 7 of the Act made on 11/07/1951, or, in the alternative, the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Compensation Officer in calculating the compensation payable to them under the Act to disregard the two provisos of Ss. (1) of Section 11 of the Act The respondent submitted in the High court that the Act contravened the provisions of Art. 31(2) and was not saved by the provisions of Art. 31(5) of the Constitution and that the Act infringed Art. 14 of the Constitution and several other contentions were also raised. The relevant provision of the Act which requires consideration is s. 11 which runs as follows:11. (1) Whenever any land is acquired under section 7 or 9 there shall be paid compensation the amount of which shall be determined by the Compensation Officer, in accordance with the principles set out in clauses first, second and third of Ss. (1) and Ss. (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Provided that the market value referred to in clause first of the said Ss. shall be deemed to be the market value of such land on the date of publication of the notice under section 7 or 9, as the case may be, or on the first day of September, 1939, whichever is less: Provided further that where such land has been held by the owner thereof under a purchase made before the first day of April, 1948, but afte