B.S. Verma, J.

1. Since, in all these three writ petitions, the controversy to be decided is similar, therefore, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Writ Petition (MS) No. 962 of 2005 and Writ Petition (MS) No. 963 of 2005 have been filed by the petitioners seeking common reliefs, which are reproduced herein below:

“(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 10.8.2005 made by respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure 1.

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar against the petitioner under the provisions of the UP Government Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958 (UP Act No. 1 of 1959) as re-enacted vide UP Government Estates Thekedari Abolition (Re-enactment and Validation) Act, 1970 (UP Act No. 28 of 1970).

(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/ notice dated 12.8.2005 issued by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, as is contained in Annexure No. 2 so far as the same relates to the petitioner.

(iv) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to proceed any further pursuant to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of UP Act No. 1 of 1959 as re-enacted vide UP Act No. 28 of 1970.

(v) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to any proceedings pursuant to the impugned order / notice dated 12.8.2005 as is contained in Annexure P 2 to the writ petition, so far as the same relates to the petitioner.

(vi) To issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in circumstances of the case.

(vii) To allow this writ petition with all costs in favour of the petitioner.”

3. During the course of arguments, relief No. 1 has not been pressed in view of the fact that the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, i.e. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, has been assailed by filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the District Judge and the same is pending for disposal.

4. Brief facts, giving rise to Writ Petition (MS) No. 962 of 2005 and Writ Petition (MS) No. 963 of 2005, as narrated in Writ Petition (MS) No. 962 of 2005, are stated in the following paragraphs:

(i) In consequence of the order passed by the Commissioner in arbitration proceedings, the District Magistrate/Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, issued the notice, whereby he had initiated proceedings under the UP Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “UP Act No. 1 of 1959) as re-enacted by the UP Government Estates Thekedari Abolition (Re-enactment and Validation) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the “UP Act No. 28 of 1970) and the Rules framed thereunder known as UP Government Estates Thekedari Abolition Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “1960 Rules”) in respect of the lands being held by the petitioner in certain villages in the district of Udham Singh Nagar. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the impugned action on the part of the respondents in initiating the proceedings against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions is being challenged on the ground that the same is completely unlawful, arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, the said action is not maintainable. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that the UP Act No. 1 of 1959, as extended to the then district of Nainital on 17.06.1965, was challenged by the predecessors in interest of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3642 of 1966 before the Allahabad High Court. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had also challenged the notification dated 30.06.1966 issued under Section 3 of the UP Act No. 1 of 1959, by which, the lease in favour of the predecessors in interest of the p