D.S.TEWATIA, J.

1. The petitioners have impugned the resumption of the property in dispute firstly on an all-embracing ground that it was without the authority of law. Alternatively, regulation 6 of the Governor General-in-Council s Order No 179 dated 12th Sept. 1836 which had been invoked in issuing the impugned notice of resumption, Annexure- D dated 17th Mar. 1971, by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, is being labelled as null and void as being violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, granted under Arts.31 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India, and, in any case, the action of resumption is said to be suffering from the vice of discrimination and thus violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.

2. Before embarking upon a consideration of contentions based on the aforesaid three grounds, it is apt to first clear a confusion in regard to the identification of the property in dispute sought to be resumed.

3. From the pleadings of the parties including the replication filed on behalf of the petitioners, the facts, which indisputably emerge, are that the petitioners father, Lala Duni Chand, held on "old grant" terms as contained in the Governor General-in-Counc