Mudholkar, J—These eleven Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed on behalf of different persons who have variously described themselves as Zamindars or Malguzars or Proprietors of ''alienated villages'', each claiming to be the proprietor of the soil in the villages or group of villages set out in their applications. They pray for issue of writs of mandamus, or certiorari or of prohibition against the State of Madhya Pradesh prohibiting them from proceeding under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, being Act I of 1951. It is stated that on the 3rd of September 1946 the Central Provinces and Berar Legislative Assembly passed a resolution for the elimination of intermediaries between the State and the peasant and that in pursuance of that resolution a bill was passed by the State Legislature. It received the assent of the President on the 22nd January 1951 and was published in the ''Madhya Pradesh Gazette'' on the 26th January 1951 as Madhya Pradesh Act I of 1951. In pursuance of section 3 of the said Act, a notification has been issued by the State Government fixing the 14th of March in respect of some of the estates and the 31st of March in respect of others, as the date on which all proprietary rights in the estate, mahal, alienated village or alienated land, as the case may be, shall pass from the proprietors and vest in the State for the purposes of the State free of all encumbrances. Then the applications go on to recite some of the salient provisions of the Act. Those provisions will be presently noticed at a convenient place. The petitioners state further that the land revenue of the mahals and estates, etc., in the Central Provinces was enhanced from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of the gross assets with effect from the linancial year 1947-48 with the result that the proprietors' income naturally has been considerably reduced. The Government are alleged further to have made rules under section 202 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act in the years 1947, 1949 and 1950 restraining or prohibiting exploitation or utilisation of the forest wealth of the properties in question. These rules are said to have further prejudicially affected the income from those properties. It is further stated that according to the rules laid down in Schedule I of the Act read with section 8 for determination of compensation the income of the petitioners has to be calculated on the records prepared in the current Settlement which took place about 35 years ago, whereas the amount to be deducted from the income is to be taken with reference to the revenue payable in the year 1950 after the enhancement from 50 to 75 per cent, as aforesaid. Further, a grievance is made that for determining the income from forest, calculations have to be made on the basis of income-tax paid during the last 30 years preceding 1950, wholly ignoring the fact that many proprietors have preserved their forests and have not made much income out of them during the relevant period. It is also alleged that the costs of management have been very much inflated under the rules so as further to reduce the net income from the properties sought to be acquired. All these inequitable and unjust rules, it is further alleged, have been laid down with a view to minimising the net income of the pro perties on the multiples of which compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the Act. The Act is impugned as ultra vires on certain grounds which will be dealt with at the proper places. In some of the petitions tabular statements have been appended to show what the petitioners considered to be the real value of the property sought to be acquired by the State and what would be the approximate compensation proposed to be paid under the provisions of the Act. These statements have been made with a view to showing that the compensation provided under the Act is wholly inadequate, almost illusory.

2. The petitione