K.B. SRIVASTAVA, J. :- This special appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings.

2. One Bhikham had two sons, Ram Ratan (father of the five appellants Shyam Sunder, Ram Shankar, Raja Ram, Sheo Ram and Sheo Govind) and Sia Ram, respondent No. 1. The name of Ram Ratan stood recorded in respect of Khatas Nos. 329 and 330, situate in village Bharwara, in the district of Lucknow. On his death, the names of his five sons came to be recorded. When this village came under Consolidation operations, Sia Ram filed an objection under Section 9 (2), U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming co-tenancy rights to the extent of one-half in these two Khatas on the ground that the name of Ram Ratan came to be recorded originally because he was the elder brother and though his own name was not recorded, he still had his cotenancy rights intact because of his cultivatory possession. His objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer and his appeal against that was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. He then preferred a revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation and it was ordered that his name should also be recorded along with the names of the five appellants, as a co-tenant in the two Khatas. The appellants then filed Writ Petition No. 633 of 1965 which was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court, giving rise to this special appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the constitutionality of the Act on various grounds, of which the following have been urged before us :-

(1) Sections 4 and 6 of the Act give arbitrary powers to the State Government to accord discriminatory treatment to tenure-holders in different villages by placing some villages under consolidation while excluding others, thus offending Article 14 of the Constitution.

(2) Sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Act provide a procedure for the correction and revision of Revenue records for villages under consolidation, which is vitally different from that applicable to villages not under consolidation, and there is thus discrimination which offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3) Sections 5, 9, 9-A and 49 of the Act confer arbitrary powers on the Consolidation authorities under which they can deprive a tenure-holder of his land or rights therein and the tenure-holder has been deprived of the protection of Courts available to other tenure-holders in village not under consolidation, thus creating discrimination which offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

4. We will now deal with these matters. The Act was passed, as the Preamble says, to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings for the development of agriculture. The object has also been succinctly stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. A clear picture of the background history leading to the enactment of the statute in question, also emerges from the discussion by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Attar Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 564.

5. Under Section 4 (1), the State Government may, where it is of opinion that a district or part thereof may be brought under Consolidation operations, make a declaration to that effect in the Gazette, whereupon it shall become lawful for any officer or authority empowered by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation to enter upon and survey, in connection with rectangulation or otherwise, and to take levels of any land in such area; to fix pillars in connection with rectangulation; and to do all acts necessary to ascertain the suitability of the area for Consolidation operations. Under Section 4 (2) of the Act where the State Government decides to start Consolidation operations, either in an area covered by a declaration issued under sub-section (1) or in any other area, it may issue a notification to this effect. Section 5 of the Act provides for the effect and consequences of a notification issued under Section 4 (2). These c