( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution certain Government Notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act are being challenged. The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a series or notifications to the effect that, certain land was to be acquired for construction of staff quarters in connection with the North Eastern Railway Headquarters Scheme. The first notification dated 2nd March 1959 was under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred to as the Act), and related! to an area of 113. 78 acres. The second notification dated 16-4-1959 related to the same area of 113. 78 acres, and was issued under Section 6 of the Act. The third notification related to a small area of 2 acres, and was issued under Section 4 of the act. There are 60 petitioners. Their claim is that they are tenants of the land covered by the said notifications, and their land is being illegally acquired by the State Government. The petitioners have therefore prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to proceed with these land acquisition proceedings.

( 2 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the apposite parties. They have maintained that the land acquisition proceedings are valid.

( 3 ) MR. Lakshmi Saran appearing for the State raised three preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the writ petition. His first contention is that a single petition by 60 claimants with respect to separate Government Notifications is not maintainable. There is force in this contention. In Moinuddin v. State of U. P. AIR 1960 All 484, it was held that, a joint petition containing a prayer for mandamus cannot be filed on behalf of several petitioners. The three impugned Government notifications cover two separate parcels of land. Two notifications relate to an area of 113-78 acres; while the third notification relates to an area of 2 acres. Again, there are as many as 60 petitioners. All of them are not interested in both the parcels of land. According to the affidavit of Dhonrahi petitioner petitioners Nos. 1 to 53 are tenants in the land with an area of 113. 78 acres. Petitioners Nos. 34, 37, 48, 52 and 54 to 60 are tenants of land measuring 2 acres. The petition is defective on account of multifariousness. There is, however, reason to believe that 53 petitioners are interested in challenging the acquisition proceedings relating to the area of 113,78 acres. I invited Mr. S. C. Khare appearing for the petitioners to exercise option. He elected to press the petition with respect to the area of 113. 78 acres. I shall therefore, confine further discussion in this case to this area of 113. 78 acres.

( 4 ) MR. Lakshmi Sarans second objection is that, the petitioners have not established a subsisting interest in the property in dispute. In Schedule No. 1 attached to the petition the petitioners have described how they are interested in different portions of the total area of 113. 78 acres. According to the petition, 53 petitioners are tenants of this land. In paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit it is stated:

"there is a dispute between the Pipraich Sugar Mills and the petitioners Nos. 19 to 53 in respect of the Sirdari rights. It is the Pipraich Sugar Mills which is recorded as Sirdar of the plots. No doubt the Assistant Collector First Class Gorakhpur had passed an order in favour of the petitioners but there is a civil litigation pending between the said Mills and the petitioners in respect of these rights. "

Since the revenue court has recognized the petitioners claim as tenants, they are prima facie tenants of the land in dispute. The opposite parties are hardly concerned with the litigation between the petitioners and the Sugar Mills. The petitioners are not required to await the result of that litigation. The petitioners have established a primafacie interest in the property in dispute. They are, therefore, entitled to file this writ petition.

( 5 ) THE third objection against the m