JUDGMENT

Dwivedi, J. - The appellants are in possession of certain cultivatory plots. The Collector, Bijnor, the second respondent. is seeking to dispossess them from these plots with the help of the police. So they filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court. Their prayer is that the respondents should be restrained from dispossessing them from the plots otherwise than in due course of law. The petition was heard by a learned single judge. The learned judge found that they were in unlawful. possession of the plots and have no defence for retaining possession thereof. He further took the view that the factum of their possession over the plots is also in controversy between the parties. For these two reasons he was of opinion that it would not be proper to intervene. So he dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal. Counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged before us that the decision of the learned judge is erroneous. He has recanvassed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants before the learned judge as well as supplemented those arguments with two new arguments. We shall discuss them presently.

2. But before we discuss them, it is nece