1. We think that the learned single judge was right in declining to interfere in this case.

2. Subject to any statutory limitations and no violation of any statute or rule made thereunder is alleged Government is like any private party free to take such steps as it pleases in accordance with law for disposing of its property and for evicting trespassers thereon. The direction given by the Government by Ext. P-1 to its subordinate, the Collector, to take steps to grant a short term lease of the plot of land in question to the petitioner is a mere executive direction vesting no legal right in the petitioner. The order, Ext. P-5, cancelling Ext. P-1 and directing the Collector to grant the lease to some other person after resuming the land from the petitioner who is in occupation is again a mere executive order and does not in any way affect the legal rights of the petitioner and if it did, Ext. P-1 having vested some legal right in him, his remedy would be to sue in enforcement of that right and not move this court under Art.226 of the Constitution. No question of natural justice seems to be involved and the allegation of mala fides is irrelevant. Even if Ext. P-1 was pass