( 1 ) THIS is a special appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing a writ petition. The respondents along with several other persons made an application to the sub-Divisional Officer, Dumariaganj, on 6-3-1953, praying that an enquiry be held as to their possession over certain land lying in village Tandauthi. It was not stated in the application under what provisions of law it was being made, but it is conceded that this was an application under the U. P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act (Act 31 of 1952 ). Although the year was not mentioned in the application it was probably intended that the enquiry was to be made about the possession of the applicants in the year 1359 Pasli. Such an enquiry is envisaged in Section 4 of the aforesaid Act upon an application made within six months from the commencement of the Act. The Act came into force on 7-11-1952 and the application having been made on 6-3-1953 was within time.

( 2 ) UPON this application the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered the Tahsildar to make an enquiry and to submit his report. The Tahsildar made an enquiry through the Girdawar Qanungo who appears to have gone on the spot and enquired from the applicants about the details of the plots in respect of which they wanted an enquiry to be made. As already stated, the plots were not mentioned in the application nor were the names of the zamindars mentioned. The Girdawar Qanungo reported that as neither the plots in possession of each individual applicant were known nor the names of the zamindars were known, it was impossible to make the enquiry about the possession of the applicants and he suggested that the application be dismissed and the applicants be directed to file a regular suit for correction of papers. This report was forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Sub-Divisional Officer with the remark that the application may be filed, and the applicants should be asked to file a regular case for correction of the papers. When this report came to the Sub-Divisional Officer he passed an order on 3-6-1953 to the following effect :-"seen File. Inform the applicant to file a regular suit. "

( 3 ) LATER on, on 1-7-1953, a second application was made by some of the original applicant including the present respondents. This application is not before us. but we are informed that this was an application for an enquiry to be made as to the possession of the applicants and probably in this application the details of the plots in respect of which the enquiry was sought to be made were given.

( 4 ) ON 21-7-1953 this application was dismissed as barred by time. It will be seen that the application of 1-7-1953 was made beyond six months of the commencement of the Act.

( 5 ) A third application was made by the respondents on 4-8-1953. This application is also not before us, but we presume that under this application the respondents wanted enquiries regarding their possession in 1359 Fasli over the plots which were specified in the application. Upon this application the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order saying that as no local enquiry was done on the first application and the applicants were directed to file regular suits

"i think an enquiry under that section (Section 4) should have been done and the application should not have been summarily rejected". He went on to observe that "i, therefore, review that order and hold that enquiry shall be done on that application now regarding possession of the applicants in 1359 Fasli. "it is this order which was challenged by the appellants by means of a writ application presented to this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

( 6 ) THE main ground upon which the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was challenged was that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no power to review the order dated 3-6-1953 and to order an enquiry.

( 7 ) THE learned single Judge dismissed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on two grounds : Firstly,