( 1 ) THIS is an appln. under Article 226, Const. Ind. for the issue of a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition.

( 2 ) THE petnr. has come up to this Ct. with the allegation that he is a citizen of India and is the proprietor of a zamindari in the district of Allahabad and that he and his ancestors have held it for the last 200 years and that he continued to hold it on 26-1-1950. He has moved this Ct. because, according to him, the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Bill is a proposed piece of legislation which completely deprives the appct. of the property which he has a right "to hold A dispose of" as he likes, that the opposite parties who are the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Minister of Revenue and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh are legally not providing adequate and reasonable compensation and that the acquisition of his zamindari property is not "an acquisition but a scheme of nationalisation" which is not contemplated under the Constitution, nor can it be said to be an "acquisition for public purposes. " According to the appct. this offends against the fundamental rights vested in him under chap. HI of the Constitution. His case further is that under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution the opposite parties cannot make any law which takes away or abridges the right of the appct. under chap III, Article 19 (f) to "acquire, hold and dispose of his property. " According to the appct. , the opposite parties are making the law in utter disregard of the Constitution. He has come up to this Ct. because there is no other speedy or alternative-remedy open to the appct. according to him, he is entitled to the relief of a writ of prohibition and mandamus against the opposite parties restraining them from bringing into existence any law which shall take away or abridge his rights.

( 3 ) HIS prayer is that this Ct. be pleased to issue a mandamus and a writ of prohibition against the state of Uttar Pradesh prohibiting them that "they shall not make the law in the name of zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Bill" and be further pleased to direct the opposite parties "by such suitable order or writ that they shall not make any substituted law which may take away or abridge the rights of the appct. in relation to his zamindari property. " there is also a further, prayer that an ad interim order be issued by this Ct. pending the examination by this Ct. of the terms of the "threatened law" so that this appln. may not become infructuous.

( 4 ) WE have heard learned counsel in support of this appln. and have been taken through the articles of the Constitution on which he places reliance. The first question that needs to be considered in this appln. is whether it is open to this Ct; to interfere with any authority concerned with the making of laws during the formative period of an enactment. This case was first heard by us on 12-1 1951. In view of the extraordinary nature of the reliefs which he was claiming we asked learned counsel for the appct. to produce before us any authority or case in support of his startling contention that the Cts. can interfere with the progress of a bill before it actually becomes the law of the land. Today when the hearing was resumed learned counsel told us that, although he had looked into the Constitutions of several countries and the ease law on the subject, he has not been able to discover any authority directly bearing on the proposition he was advancing.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel has advanced arguments to show that the terms of Article 13, specially clause (2) do not find place in any of the Constitutions except the American Constitution and there it finds place because a limitation has been placed upon the powers of the judiciary. He has further argued that the words used in Article 13 (2)"the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this. Part. " include also a proposed enactment. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advan