- (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the various writs detailed in para. 22 of the petition. It is necessary to set forth the reliefs claimed in order to make my position clear in regard to this ease. The reliefs claimed are : (a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued on the opposite parties restraining them from acting in any manner by virtue of, or under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (1 of 1951), and interfering with the petitioner's exercise of his proprietary rights by any action taken through its servants and agents. (b) That a writ or such other direction or order as the Court may deem proper be issued quashing the notification issued by the opposite party No. 1 under Section 4 of the said U. P. Act, 1 of 1951, and published in the State Gazette Extraordinary dated 1-7-1952, and directing the said opposite party to restore the petitioner back to his proprietary possession, and restraining it by means of a permanent injunction order from compulsorily acquiring the petitioner's property under the provisions of the said U. P. Act, 1 of 1951. (c) That an interim injunction bo issued restraining the opposite parties from acting in any manner by virtue of, or under the provisions of, the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act (1 of 1951), and issuing any coercive processes under the said Act against the petitioner for the recovery of the arrears of revenue in respect of Rabi 1359-F. in pursuance of the writ of demand dated 22-7-1952 served upon the petitioner by the opposite party No. 2 by any action taken through their servants and agents. (d) That such further or, other writs, directions or orders be issued as this Court may deem fit and proper.
(2.) I have quoted at length the reliefs claimed in this case in order to indicate unmistakably that what the applicant is seeking in effect today by this application, under Article 226 of the constitution, is to invite this Court to go into matters which were finally disposed of by the supreme Court. As a well known, the law, as laid down by the Supreme Court, is binding on this court. The questions, which are the subject-matter of this application, were considered at length both by the Supreme Court and a Full Bench of this Court. Suffice it to say that the arguments, which have been advanced could, and probably most of them were actually advanced have been advanced before the Supreme Court and the Full Bench. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred in an argument, which has taken a good deal of the time of this Court, at length to various points but I do not consider it necessary to discuss them.
(3.) I indicated to learned counsel that we would bo prepared to consider the question of notice on its merits if ho was prepared to confine his attack to statutory rules made under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act) and not to the main Act itself. Learned counsel rejected that suggestion. Indeed, learn, ed counsel frankly concedes that his case is that the Act is incapable of being put into force and that it must be deemed to be an invalid piece of legislation. It is quite obvious from the reliefs claimed and the affidavit filed that what the applicant is seeking to do is to challenge the validity of an Act which has been declared to be intra vires the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel has told us clearly that his purpose will not be served by challenging the validity of statutory rules and indeed according to his contention the vesting order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Government is null and void.;