Bhagwan Das Gupta, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against an order passed by Lokur, J. whereby he dismissed appellants' petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that this appeal should be allowed. On 6 -9 -1954, a notification u/S. 4 of the Forest Act was issued for the purpose of constituting several lands as reserved forest. This was followed, on 1 -10 -1958, by another notification u/S. 20 of the said Act declaring those lands to be reserved forest. The case of the appellants was that the area declared as reserved forest included patches of land on which they were severally in possession as 'Bhumidhars' or 'Sirdars'. By filing the writ petition in this Court, the appellants sought to prevent an attempt on the part of the State to dispossess them from the patches in their possession. The notifications u/Ss. 6 and 20 of the Forest Act were questioned on certain grounds which it does not appear necessary to set forward for the purposes of this judgment.
(2.) Lokur, J. dismissed the petition on the grounds principally that a single petition by six different persons in respect of different patches of land was not maintainable. The learned Judge added that factual disputes also had arisen which could not be raised in a writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellants has questioned both the propositions enunciated by Lokur, J. in support of his order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mall Singh v/s. Laksha Kumari Khaitan (1968 ALJ 210) and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur v/s. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda ( : AIR 1970 SC 802). The contentions raised by learned counsel appear to be well founded.
(3.) In the case of Mall Singh and others (supra), it was laid down that more persons than one can join in a petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution under circumstances in which persons more than one can join as plaintiffs in a suit in accordance with the provisions of O. I, R. 1, CPC. It was observed that if the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction and there is a common question of law or fact and the petitioners are jointly interested, a joint petition by such persons is maintainable u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, this decision fully covers the circumstances of this case and the learned Judge erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that a joint petition was not maintainable.;