Khosla, J.

1. This matter has been referred to us by Dulat J. on account of the importance of the question involved. The matter came before him in the original instance as a petition for writ on behalf of ten persons under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioners challenge the action of Government in seeking to obtain possession of 3,400 bighas of their land in village Lalain Pangala, District Karnal, under the provisions of the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act No. 38 of 1949). Two points were raised before us by Mr. Tek Chand who appeared on behalf of the petitioners. He contended in the first place that the provisions of the Act which empowered the Collector to take possession of land under Section 3 were ultra vires. In the second place, he argued that the notice required by Section 3 had not been given to the petitioners and that therefore the subsequent steps taken by the Collector to obtain possession of their land were unwarranted by law and illegal.

3. I shall deal first with the question of the vires of the Act. The contention of Mr. Tek Chand is that the expressed purpose of the Act is not public & that therefore inasmuch as i