S. P. BHARGAVA, J. :- By its order, dated 7-9-1962, the Board of Revenue reversed the order of the Courts below and rejected the prayer of the petitioners for execution of their decree by delivery of possession of the land in suit, It held that the decree in favour of the petitioners for delivery of possession of the suit land had become inexecutable on the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, Samvat 2008 (No. 13 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Abolition Act) coming into force on 2-10-1951. This petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges the validity of the said order and seeks to have it set aside.

2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows : Nirbhaisingh, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants, and the 7th respondent Mehtabsingh, had instituted a Revenue Case No. 100 of samyat 2001 in the year 1944 under Sections 326 and 329 of the Qanoon Mal of the erstwhile Gwalior State against Ghasiram, Dharsingh, Prabhulal and deceased Uttamsingh who was the predecessor-in-interest of the 4th and 5th respondents. In the Plaint, It was alleged that the bir land in suit measuring 57 bighas and 7 biswas situated in village Jugyai was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and their co-shavers, viz., Uttamsnigh and Prabhulal and that the respondents 2 and 3 Ghasiram and Dharusingh wrongfully dispossessed them on 1-8-1944 and subsequently began to cultivate it. The plaintiffs prayed for restoration of possession and claimed damages for wrongful dispossession thereof. Later on, the first respondent, Ramkaran was added as a defendant on the ground that he was in possession of the disputed land. The plaintiffs claimed a decree for the said reliefs against him also. The suit was decreed by the Naib Tahsildar, Basoda, on 6-7-1950 and this decision was finally upheld by the Board of Revenue on 16-8-1955.

3. In the year 1952, Nirbhaysingh and Mehtabsingh filed an application for execution of the decree and the first respondent Ramkaran raised various objections to the execution of the decree We are, however, not concerned with those objections at this stage. The objections raised by him were disallowed by the Tehsil Court by its order, dated 3-9-1952, in Revenue Case No. 55 of 1955. This order was upheld in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer and on further appeal by the Commissioner, Bhopal Division. Against the order of the Commissioner, respondent Ramkaran preferred an application in revision before the Board of Revenue. At the time of hearing of the revision petition, he abandoned the objections which he had raised in the lower courts but raised two new contentions, namely, (i) that the decree, dated 6-7-1950, was passed by the Naib Tahsildar who bad no jurisdiction to try a case under Section 326 of the Qanoon Mal and, therefore, the decree was a nullity; and (ii) that the decree for possession of the suit laud had become inexecutable after the abolition of Zamindari by the Madhya Bharat Abolition Act aforesaid. The Board of Revenue rejected the first contention but held that the decree had become inexecutable on the ground that the decree-holders had lost their right, title and interest in the suit lands from the date of vesting in the State of their proprietary rights under the provisions of the said Abolition Act.

4. The only question, therefore, for consideration in this petition is as to whether on account of the Abolition Act having come into force on 2-10-1951, the decree-holders (petitioners) were not entitled to execute their decree for possession of the land in suit.

5. Shri R.S. Dabir, learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised the following contentions :-

1. That Section 3(2) of the Abolition Act expressly permits acquisition of rights "in or over the land" to which the notification for vesting relates under a decree or order of a Court and the right to gel possession of the suit land accrued to the decree-holders (petitioners) under the decree or order of a competent Court