( 1 ) THE Division Bench has referred this case to a Full Bench for decision of the Writ Petition without framing any specific question for the opinion of the Full Bench. Therefore, we propose to decide the entire matter by resolving the conflict of views as indicated in the order of reference.

( 2 ) THE facts loading to the present reference are as follows: In this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a Writ of certiorari in respect of the orders of the Revenue Courts (Exs. P/l to P/4) holding that the tanks recorded as Khasra Nos. 461 and 542 in village Gorra had vested in the State by virtue of Section 251 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1950. ( 3 ) PRIOR to the merger of the Chhattisgarh States into the old Central Provinces, the petitioner was a Gaonthia and a protected Thekedar of village Gorra and his rights were governed by the Raigarh State Wajib-ul-arz. Subsequent to the merger of the Raigarh State into the old Central Provinces, the petitioner's rights were governed by the Central Provinces, (Merged States) Land Tenure Order, 1949. That Land Tenure Order of 1949 was repealed by the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1954, which came into force with effect from 1-10-1955. Thereafter that Act was repealed and was replaced by the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which came into effect from 2-10-1959. In the meantime, the proprietary rights were abolished by enactment of the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. 1950, and certain rights in tanks were saved in favour of the exproprietors by virtue of section 5 (a), Section 5 (f) and Section 5 (g) of the said Act. The petitioner's contention throughout, in the Revenue Courts and in the present Writ Petition, has been that Section 251 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. 1959, is inapplicable in the present case. Therefore, we are required to consider the question as to what the legal position was subsequent to the coming into force of the M. P. Abolition of proprietary Rights Act, 1950.-- (1 of 1951), according to which, the date of vesting was 31st of March, 1951. It is not necessary to consider the question of the petitioner's rights prior to that date.

( 4 ) EVEN according to the petitioner people in the village were bathing in the tanks and were taking water for drinking purposes. As such, it is the petitioner's case that people of the village were using the water of both the tanks for their Nistar. The question of vesting has to be judged in this background, as this right was being exercised by the villagers under Clause 49 of the Raigarh State Wajib-ul-arz, before the Raigarh State had merged into the Central Provinces. That position obtains even now.

( 5 ) SECTION 3 of the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, provided for vesting of proprietary lights in the State. It may be relevant to reproduce the said section, which is as follows:--

"section 3. (1 ).--Vesting of proprietary lights in the State.--Save as otherwise provided in this Act, on and from a date to be specified by a notification by the State Government in this behalf, all proprietary rights in an estate, mahal, alienated village or alienated land, as the case may be, in the area specified in the notification, vesting in a proprietor of such estate, mahal, alienated village, alienated land, or in a person having interest in such proprietary right through the proprietor, shall pass from such proprietor or such other person to and vest in the State for the purpose of the State free of all encumbrances. (2 ).--After the issue of a notification under Sub-section (1), no right shall be acquired in or over the land to which the said notification relates, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the State; and no fresh clearing for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State government an this behalf. (3 )