26 and 27 of 1954 24 and 437 of 1955 256 of 1956 12 16 17 and 73 of 1957.
s. bindra and harbans singh for the petitioners in petitions number.
adhikary advocate general for the state of madhya pradesh and i. n. shroff for the respondent in petitions number.
437 of 55 and 256 of 56.
umrigar and r. h. dhebar for the respondent in petitions number.
petitions number.
26 and 27 of 1954 24 and 437 of 1955 256 of 1956 and 12 of 1957.
26 and 27 of 1954 24 of 1955 and the present petition number 12 of 1957 .
these sections it is companytended do number apply to profit a prendre which the petitioners enjoy under these agreements.
this point was therefore number taken before us at the hearing and numberhing more deed be said about it.
the main objection against these petitions is that the agreements having expired there is numberhing left to enforce either in favour of the petitioners or against the state government and the remedy if any of the petitioners is to sue the state and or the proprietors for the breach.
n. sanyal additional solicitor general of india h.j.
petition under article 32 of the companystitution of india for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
n. swami and m. s. k. sastri for the petitioners in petitions number.
march 9.
16 17 and 73 of 1957.
26 and 27 of 1954 24 and 437 of 1955 256 of 1956 and 16 17 and 73 of 1957.
original jurisdiction petitions number.
s. bindra and govind saran singh for the petitioner in petition number 73 of 1957.
26 and 27 of 54 and 24 of 1955.
in these petitions the agreements with the petitioners are made by registered documents and the terms during which they are to operate have yet to expire.
k. jha j. m. thakur s. n. andley and j. b. dadachanji for the petitioner in petition number 12 of 1957.
these petitions under art.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. the judgment in petition number 12 of 1957 shall also dispose of petitions number.
s. k. sastri for the petitioners in petitions number.
16 and 17 of 1957.
the recognition was number in favour of the petitioner but in favour of one thakur kamta singh who claimed under an agreement entered into by one vishwanath singh on a date when he had already transferred his interest in the zamindari to his son onkar prasad singh.
the last group companysists of petitions number.
