( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The applicant is a tenure holder in village Mundait in the district of Muzaffarnagar, Proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 were taking place in the village as also in certain other neighbouring villages. The Assistant Consolidation Officer formulated a statement of proposals under Section 19 of the aforesaid Act. The petitioner and certain other persons filed objections against the proposals. The consolidation officer heard those objections and decided them by his order dated 23rd July, 1955. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer there was an appeal before the settlement Officer who dismissed the appeal by his order dated 20th August, 1955. Against the order of the Settlement Officer there was a revision which was dismissed by the Assistant director of Consolidation by an order dated 9th November, 1955.

( 2 ) IN the statement of proposals made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer certain lands belonging to the applicant and other tenure holders were set apart for public purposes as provided for under Clause (ee) of Section 14 (1) of the Act and Chaks were allotted to the petitioner and other tenure-holders on the basis of the proposals as confirmed by the higher authorities whose orders we have mentioned above.

( 3 ) THE applicant was admittedly deprived of certain land under Clause (ee) of Section 14. The petitioner came to this Court on the ground that the Consolidation of Holdings Act was ultra vires as it violated the fundamental right of property of the petitioner and on the ground that the allotment orders passed by the authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings Act were against law. In the Writ Petn. of Mukhtar Singh v. Consolidation Officer, Civil Miscs. Writ No. 252 of 1956 (All) (A), a Bench of this Court has held that in so far as the Act and the Rules made under it authorise the taking away from the tenure-holders of land for purposes of common utility or public purposes without payment of compensation, it contravenes the provisions of Article 31 as it stood when Clause (ee) was enacted. As in the present case the petitioner has been deprived of certain portion of his land without payment of compensation, the orders by means of which he has been so deprived must be quashed.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the State it was urged by the learned Junior Standing Counsel that only that portion of the statement of proposals by which certain land or rental value was set apart for purposes of common utility under Clause (ee) of Section 14 of the Act, out of the holdings of the petitioner may be set aside or quashed and the rest of the proposals be allowed to stand.

( 5 ) WE think that the statement of proposals being based upon the assumption that land could be taken away from the tenure-holders for purposes of common utility under Clause (ee) of Section 14 must be set aside as a whole, because it is possible that if such land were not taken out of the share of a tenure-holder, he might have been allotted some other chak instead of the one he had actually been allotted. The whole of the scheme has, therefore, to be considered de novo keeping in view that no land be taken away from any tenure-holder for purposes of common utility as provided for by Clause (ee) of Section 14.

( 6 ) ON behalf of the opposite party No. 6 and some other opposite parties who are tenure-holders in the village two points were urged: firstly, that as the proposals of the Assistant Consolidation officer as confirmed by the higher authorities affected not only the tenure-holders who were impleaded in the petition but also the other tenure-holder who are not parties to the case, the application should be dismissed, and secondly that Clause (ee) of Section 14 of the Act and the rules made thereunder are saved by the provisions of Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Article 31 A of the Constitution.

( 7 ) AS regards the first point, we may state tha