( 1 ) THE petitioner prays under Article 226 of the constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to (i) mutate his name as private Owner of bungalow No. 29, Chaitham Lines, Survey No. 143, Old Cantonment Allahabd (hereinafter referred to as the Bungalow) and (ii) accept property taxes from him in regard thereto and (iii) to award him costs. The Backdrop :-2. From the writ petition, counter-affidavits and Rejoinder thereto exchanged between the parties, and the records called for at the request of learned counsel for both sides it is apparent that in regard to thebungalow there were series of litigations, which are necessary to be mentioned first in seriatim.

( 2 ) IN execution of a decree against the judgment-debtors-Scott and Spencer, the bungalow was auction sold on 26th November, 1848 and purchased for Rs. 2,900. 00 by the decree-holder Lala Manohar Lal, (Grand Father of the Petitioner) and that auction sale was confirmed by the Court on 27-12-1848. 2. 2 The Respondents on behalf of the Union of India on the strength of Governor Generals Order No. 179 dated 12th September, 1836 tried to take possession of the bungalow by issuing resumption notice on 26/12/1968 to the petitioner. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 175 of 1969 before this Court challenging this notice alleging, inter alia, that the bungalow is in his possession being his private property, which he had got through auction sale and family settlement; that the Union of India is not the owner of the disputed property; and that his title was also perfected by adverse possession. His claim was contended by the Respondents on various grounds which are not necessary to be mentioned. This writ petition was finally dismissed with certain liberties to both parties vide Order dated 6/07/1970, the relevant portion of which reads thus :-"the petitioner challenged the validity of this notice on several grounds. It has been alleged that it violates the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 31 (2) of the Constitution and that the notice is confiscatory in nature. It has also been alleged that the Order No. 179 dated 12th September, 1836, is no longer in existence and is not applicable to Allahabad. It has been stressed that the land was not subject to any resumption and that the petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession. It has also been alleged that the Governor Generals Order No. 179 is no longer operative by virtue of the operation of the Government of India Act, 1935 as also the Constitution of India. The respondents have in the counter-affidavit controverted the various points raised in the petition. They have filed a supplementary affidavit to show that the aforesaid Order No. 179 is still in operation and is applicable to all such lands. A perusal of the pleadings shows that several questions of a highly controversial nature arise in this case. The petitioner challenges the very title of the Government to the land and also its power to resume possession over the land. In paragraph (sic) of the principal counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the President of India as well as the Military Estate Officer, Lucknow, it has been stated that "in case the petitioner does not hand over possession in pursuance of this notice, the respondents do not propose to forthwith evict the petitioner by use of force. They will have recourse to appropriate proceedings either by filing regular suit for the ejectment of the petitioner or by having recourse to any other valid provision of law authorising them to get possession of the Government land. In either case the petitioner will get an adequate apportunity to get the question of title or the adequacy of compensation offered determined by the local authority. "it is thus clear that the respondents have given up the threat (held out in the impugned notice) of dispossession without recourse to process of law. In this situation, the further