CHOTEY LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appln. under Article 226, Const. Ind. for the issue of a writ of mandamus & a writ of prohibition.

(2.) The petnr. has come up to this Ct. with the allegation that he is a citizen of India & is the proprietor of a zamindari in the district of Allahabad & that he & his ancestors have held it for the last 200 years & that he continued to hold it on 26-1-1950. He has moved this Ct. because, according to him, the Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Bill is a proposed piece of legislation which completely deprives the appct. of the property which he has a right "to hold A dispose of" as he likes, that the opposite parties who are the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Minister of Revenue & the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh are legally not providing adequate & reasonable compensation & that the acquisition of his zamindari property is not "an acquisition but a scheme of nationalisation" which is not contemplated under the Constitution, nor can it be said to be an "acquisition for public purposes." According to the appct. this offends against the fundamental rights vested in him under chap. HI of the Constitution. His case further is that under Article 13 (2) of the Constitution the opposite parties cannot make any law which takes away or abridges the right of the appct. under chap III, Article 19 (f) to "acquire, hold & dispose of his property." According to the appct., the opposite parties are making the law in utter disregard of the Constitution. He has come up to this Ct. because there is no other speedy or alternative-remedy open to the appct. according to him, he is entitled to the relief of a writ of prohibition and mandamus against the opposite parties restraining them from bringing into existence any law which shall take away or abridge his rights.

(3.) His prayer is that this Ct. be pleased to issue a mandamus & a writ of prohibition against the State of Uttar Pradesh prohibiting them that "they shall not make the law in the name of Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Bill" & be further pleased to direct the opposite parties "by such suitable order or writ that they shall not make any substituted law which may take away or abridge the rights of the appct. in relation to his zamindari property." There is also a further, prayer that an ad interim order be issued by this Ct. pending the examination by this Ct. of the terms of the "threatened law" so that this appln. may not become infructuous.