JUDGMENT

J.K. Tandon, J. - There is a ferry known as Dhumri ferry situate at mile 17th on Etah Aliganj Road across the river Kali Nadi in Etah district. The petitioner, who is Rai Prakash Narain, claims that the above ferry belonged to him and his ancestors through a grant made in their favour some time after 1857 and that ever since he and his family have been exercising the rights over it. On one bank of the river is situate village Dhumri, by which name the ferry is also known, and on the other bank is situate village Rajpur. These villages, according to the petitioner, did not belong to them earlier having been acquired by the family subsequently only in 1898 but the ferry belonged to them earlier also as property independent of the ownership of these villages. The purpose in making this allegation is that the ferry was in no sense a part of the Zamindari of these two villages. In support of his allegation that the ferry has nothing to do with the property in these two villages, the petitioner has further pointed out that on the income that the family earned from this ferry it had been paying income tax continuously from 1941.

2. It is well known that on the 1st of July 1952 all the Zamindaris in the State of Uttar Pradesh were acquired under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. According to sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Sec. 6 of that Act one of the consequences following the acquisition of Zamindari was that all rights, title and interest of the intermediaries in every estate, as defined in that Act, including amongst other items ferries also ceased and vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Basing, therefore, its claim on the above provision in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the State Government claimed that with effect from 1st of July 1952 this particular ferry also vested in its favour and the rights, title and interest of the petitioner ceased there in. The State also took over its possession and started leasing out the ferry. The stand taken by the State, as has been asserted in the counter affidavit also, was and is that this ferry was part and parcel of the Zamindari rights of village Dhumri, as such petitioner's right came to an end under Sec. 6 (a) (i) of the Act.

3. Prior to the filing of the present petition Rai Girendra Narain, who is petitioner's uncle, moved another writ petition, being no. 610 of 1953 before this Court challenging the validity of the action of the Collector taking possession of this ferry in consequence of acquisition of Zamindaris. This petition was later withdrawn or allowed to be dismissed, as it was pointed out that certain questions of fact needed to be enquired into which could usefully be done in a regular suit only. Another fact, which has been stated by the petitioner is that his father entered into a contract to work this ferry with the District Magistrate on contract basis at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month in 1952. Later the contract money was reduced to Rs. 175/- per month. The petitioner's contention in this connection is that his father was ignorant about the true legal position when he consented to take this theka from the district authorities. In any case, his contention further is that he is in no way bound by it nor bound to make the payment agreed to by his father. Further according to the petitioner after the true position had been discovered, he wrote to the Land Reforms Commissioner to pay him compensation in respect of this ferry which the latter refused, taking the stand as it appeared that the ferry was part of the Zamindari for which compensation was determined under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and no separate compensation was payable. This was done on August 11, 1956. Thus having failed to get redress in this manner, the petitioner moved the present petition asking that either the ferry be restored back to his possession or the State of Uttar Pradesh be asked to pay compensation for the same. He h