V. Bhargava, J. - (1.) IN all these petitions, the Petitioners prayed for the issue of writs of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution, prohibiting the State of Uttar Pradesh and other authorities from interfering, in any manner, with the enjoyment of the rights by the Petitioners arising out of the various registered agreements executed in their favour after the 8th day of August, 1946. Under these agreements, the Petitioners obtained the rights from the then zamindars of forest areas in the district of Mirzapur to cut jungle trees. Manufacture charcoal out of the timber, collect fuel, prepare timber and do other acts. In all these cases, the period fixed for the agreements has not yet expired. The properties, in respect of which the contracts were granted to the Petitioners, vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 1st July, 1952, under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and thereafter the opposite parties, treating these contract's as void, interfered with the working of the Petitioners under those contracts. Consequently, the Petitioners moved these writ petitions.
(2.) THE main point, which arises in these petitions, is exactly the same which arose in Writ Petition No. 468 of 1953 (Vijyanand Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh) which was decided by me on the 22nd of February, 1955. The point, being identical in all these petitions, fails for the reasons given in that judgment and it is, therefore, not at all necessary for me to discuss it again. Only one other point has been, argued by Learned Counsel in these writ petitions. He has contended that Section 8 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act cannot apply to these contracts and these contracts cannot be held to be void in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Firm Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Company v. The State of Madhya Pradesh : A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 108. That decision of the Supreme Court was given with reference to Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, and, in my opinion, it is not applicable to the cases before me because of the difference in the language of Section 6 of that Act and Section 8 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Under Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, what was laid down was that the transfer of any right in the property, which was liable to vest in the State under the Act, made by the proprietor at any time after 16th March, 1950, was from the date of vesting to be void. The contract itself was not declared to be void. What was declared void was the transfer of any right in the property which was liable to vest in the State. It was held in that case that the contracts did not affect the transfer of any right in the property which vested in the State and it was on this ground that those contracts were upheld. In Section 8 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, there is no mention of any transfer of a right in the property which has vested in the State. Section 8 declares void any contract for grazing or gathering of produce from land or the collection of forest produce or fisheries from any forest or fisheries entered into after the eighth day of August, 1946, between an intermediary and any other person in respect of any private forest, fisheries or land lying in such estate. It cannot be contended that the rights, which these Petitioners are claiming, are not under contracts. The contracts are also of the nature mentioned in Section 8 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and, consequently, that section is, in terms, fully applicable. For Section 8 of the U.P. Act to apply, it is not necessary that the contract should affect any transfer of any right in the property which vests in the State. The judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court is, therefore, not applicable to these cases before me which consequently fail.
(3.) ALL these petitions have no force and are, therefore, dismissed with costs.;