Land acquired by the Government of the United Provinces under an agreement entered into on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council, and used for purposes of a federal railway, vested in the Union of India upon the commencement of the Constitution.

G. C. MATHUR, J. :- These are two appeals by the State Government against two judgments of a learned Single Judge, allowing two writ petitions. Since the point involved in the two cases is the same, it is convenient to disipose them of by a common judgment.

2. An agreement dated October 11, 1905, was entered into by the Government of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh and the firm of Martin and Co. Under this agreement, provisions were made for the grant of a concession of the right to construct and work what has subsequently come to be known as Shahdara-Saharanpur Light Railway. Under one of the terms of the agreement, the Government agreed to provide free of charge sufficient land for purposes of the Railway. It appears that land was acquired by the Government and was handed over to the Railway. Ever since this Light Railway has been operating between Shahdara (Delhi) and Saharanpur. Though, in the beginning, Shahdara was a part of the United Provinces, later it was included in Delhi.

3. By a special resolution dated December 10,1970, the S. S. Light Railway Co. decided to go into voluntary liquidation and a voluntary liquidator was appointed. On March 18,1971, an agreement was entered into between the Company and one Sri Bishambhar Dayal of Delhi for the sale of the assets of the Company. By another agreement dated September 25, 1971, the Railway Company entered into an agreement with Messrs. Saeed Ahmad and Company, Saharanpur, for the sale of all the trees which stood on both sides of the railway track from Shahdara to Saharanpur. When these purchasers started removing the things which they had purchased, certain orders were passed by the State Government and its functionaries, stopping them from doing so. Thereupon Writ Petition No 1676 of 1973 was filed by the S. S. Light Railway Company Limited, praying that the orders by which its purchasers were being prevented from removing the articles sold be quashed. Writ Petition No. 1778 of 1973 was filed by Messrs. Saeed Ahmad and Company, praying that the orders of the State Government and of its functionaries, preventing this petitioner from cutting and removing the trees, be quashed. Both the writ petitions were based on the assertion that the State Government had no concern with the land which had been given to the Railway and upon which the trees stood and where the other properties of the Railway were situated. The State Government opposed both the writ petitions, mainly on the ground that, on the Company going into voluntary liquidation, the land reverted to it and it was the owner thereof. The Union of India, which was made a party in Writ Petition No. 1778 of 1973, filed a counter-affidavit, asserting that the land vested in it and not in the State Government. The learned Single Judge held that the land vested in the Union of India and not in the State Government. He accordingly allowed both the writ petitions, quashed the offending orders and restrained the State Government and its functionaries from interfering with the purchasers from the Company in removing the articles purchased by them.

4. Against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1778 of 1973, the State Government has filed Special Appeal No. 61 of 1975. This relates to the trees sold by the Company to Messrs. Saeed Ahmad and Company. Against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1676 of 1973, the State Government has filed Special Appeal No. 81 of 1975. This appeal is directed only against the orders of the learned Single Judge in respect of the trees sold by the Railway Company to Messrs. Saeed Ahmad and Company. In both these appeals, the only question, which arises for determination, is whether the land, which had originally been given to the Railway Company has now vested in the State Government.

5. Reliance was placed by the learned Standing Counsel on the agreement of October 11, 1905. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the agreement was entered into by the Government of the United Provinces and that