M. C. DESAI, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been laid before this bench at the instance of our brother Broome who was of the view that the decision of this Court in Bir Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1960 All LJ 52 required reconsideration in view of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Manna Lal v. Collector of Jhalawar, AIR 1961 SC 828 and Nav Rattanmal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 sc 1704.

( 2 ) THE petition is for certiorari to quash certain orders of the Additional Collector, Bijnor, and the District Judge Bijnor, and mandamus requiring them and others to refrain from interfering with the possession of the petitioner and his partners over certain land in village Azamullah nagar, or, in the alternative, to restore possession over it to them. It arises in the following circumstances. The land in dispute in the petition, measuring about 343 bighas, is a portion of land measuring about 800 acres in village Azamullah Nagar of Bijnor district in respect of which the proprietors of the village had executed a registered lease for 20 years on 27-3-1950 in favour of two persons, Ravi Khanna and Harbans Singh. The lessees took the petitioner and the pro forma opposite parties, Randhir Singh etc. , as their partners. In September 1951 the entire land of the village was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the State of U. P. for settling thereon demobilised personnel and possession over it was taken by the Colonisation Department of the State in November 1951. The land in dispute is said to have been lying fallow in the end of june 1951, though in possession of the petitioner and the pro forma opposite parties. On 2-2-1957 a notice under Section 4 (1) of the U. P. Government Land (Eviction and Recovery of rent) Act of 1953 was issued on behalf of the State alleging that possession of the petitioner (and the pro forma opposite parties) over the land in dispute was unauthorised and calling upon them to vacate it within a month. The petitioner etc. replied to the notice contending that they were in cultivatory possession, that after the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent) Act had been issued a compromise was reached between the colonisation Committee and the petitioner and others, that by virtue of if the land in dispute was released in their favour and that consequently their possession was not unauthorised. The additional Collector dismissed their objection on 21-5-1957, holding that their possession was unauthorised and on 7-6-1957 ordered their eviction and passed a decree for damages against them. The petitioner and others appealed to the District Judge, who dismissed the appeal in december 1957. The State took formal possession on 7-1-1958. On 31-3-1958 the petitioner presented the petition. The orders of the Additional Collector and the District Judge referred to above are the orders sought to be quashed. The petitioner denied that he has lost actual possession, but in view of the formal delivery of possession taken by the State on 7-1-1958 claimed in the alternative the relief of possession. He attacked the Government Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent) Act of 1953 (to be referred to as the Act of 1953) as unconstitutional on account of its infringing his Fight to equal protection of the law and equality before the law guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, claimed adhivasi rights under the U. P. Land reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952, which matured into sirdari rights under the Zamindari abolition (Amendment) Act of 1954 and contended that the land in dispute had been released from acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. The petition was opposed on behalf of the opposite parties, barring the pro forma opposite parties. They denied that any land was released from acquisition proceedings in favour of the petitioner and others and contended that actual possession was taken on 7-1-1958.

( 3 ) THE Act of 1953 was enacted to provide for speedier process for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document