Sikri, J. - (1.) These appeals by certificates granted by the High Could of Judicature at Allahabad raise one principal question:Whether the amendment of the definition of the word 'estate' in clause (8) of S. 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Reforms Act) made by S. 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1963, hereinafter called the impugned Act, is within the definition of the word 'estate' in Art. 31-A (2) of the Constitution
(2.) These appeals arise out of a petition filed by Raja Anand Brahma Shah of Agori Barhar-Raj under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The State of Uttar Pradesh had issued a notification No. 3549/1/A-499 dated June 30, 1953, extending the provisions of Reforms Act, 1950, to apply to the areas to the South of Kaimur Range. It then issued another notification No. 3949/(1) A-499-1949 dated July 1953, directing the vesting of all 'estates' situated to the south of Kaimur including the Pargana Agori, owned by the petitioner. The Pargana Agori is comprised of 123 villages. At the time the petition was filed and the judgment of the Single Judge, dated November 8, 1957, was delivered, S. 3 (8) of the Reforms Act stood as follows: " Estate" means the area included under an entry in any of the registers prepared and maintained under clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) of S. 32 of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901, or in the registers maintained under clause (e) of the said Section in so far as it relates to a permanent tenure holder and includes share in or of an estate."
(3.) The case of the pensioner in short was that Pargana Agori was not an estate within S. 3 (8) of the Reforms Act because no records were prepared and maintained under the provisions of S. 32 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901, in respect of Pargana Agori, and the records alleged to have been prepared between 1840 to 1843 under the Bengal Regulations were unauthorised and he Government itself did not approve these records at any time. The learned Single Judge, keeping in view the definition in S. 3 (8) of the Reforms Act, came to the conclusion that the whole of 81 villages, including the cultivated area, the forest, the bill and everything else would vest in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He held that the Raja's name alone was entered in the khewats of 64 villages, and in the khewats of 17 villages although the names of underproprietors were written, the Raja was the proprietor of the entire villages because the Raja's name was mentioned as 'Malik Ala'. With respect to the remaining 42 villages he held that only the areas mentioned in the khewats of the different villages and not the forests and hills attached to them fell within S. 3 (8). In the result he allowed the petition in part and issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take possession nor to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the hills and jungle appertaining to the said 42 villages as distinguished from the areas mentioned in the khewats of these villages at the time the vesting order was issued. He dismissed the rest of the claim. The petitioner and the State of Uttar Pradesh both filed appeals, the petitioner claiming that the petition should be allowed in entirety, the State claiming that the petition should be dismissed.;