JUDGMENT B. Mukerji, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for mandamus to command the respondents to pay compensation and rehabilitation grant in respect of a waqf, named Dargah Shah Abul Maali Sahib, recorded at serial No. 356 in the Register recording Sunni waqfs. 2. The petitioner who claimed the writ of mandamus from this Court is a mutwalli and one of the Shajjadanashins of a very ancient institution, inasmuch as it appears that the origin of this waqf dated back to the Moghal days. The facts set out in the petition indicate that during the Moghal times the Moghal Government made an assignment of the land revenue payable by 33 villages in Tahsil, Nakur, in the district of Saharanpur, for the benefit of the aforementioned Dargah of Shah Abul Maali Sahib. The Mutwalli and Sajjadanashin of the Dargah, apparently, managed the waqf and spent the funds coming into the coffers of the waqf. On the disappearance of the Moghal Empire from India, the British, who took over the Government of this area, in a sense re-affirmed the assignment of the land revenue. The position was, therefore, that ever since the disappearance of the Moghal rule in the district of Saharanpur, the land revenue in respect of the said 33 villages were being taken and utilised by the waqf. Relevant entries evidencing this assignment of land revenue in favour of the waqf were also made in the village records. 3. With the passing of the Zamindari Abolition and the Land Reforms Act of 1950 and with the coming into force of that Act, on a notification having been made under Section 4 of the Act in 1952, the consequences which were mentioned in Section 6 of the Act followed. One of the consequences mentioned in Section 6 of the Act was as contained in sub-Cl. (b) of that section. "all grants and confirmations of title of or to land in any estate so acquired, or of or to any right or privilege in respect of such land or its land revenue shall, whether liable to resumption or not, determine;" On the aforementioned provision, therefore, the right of land revenue, which the waqf had, determined. (b) of that section. "all grants and confirmations of title of or to land in any estate so acquired, or of or to any right or privilege in respect of such land or its land revenue shall, whether liable to resumption or not, determine;" On the aforementioned provision, therefore, the right of land revenue, which the waqf had, determined. The Mutwalli and Sajjadanashin Shah Maudood Ahmed, who is the petitioner before us, thought that he was entitled to get compensation under the Zamindari Abolition Act for he appears to have equated himself to an intermediary entitled to compensation. He therefore laid a claim to compensation before the Compensation Officer of Tahsil Nakur and applied to the Collector of Saharanpur on the 29th Sept. 1952 for such compensation. The Collector by his order dated 18th July 1953, expressed the opinion that the petitioner was entitled to annuity for which he had applied. The matter thereafter went before the Compensation Officer who by his order dated 14th December 1953, finding the question as to whether or not the petitioner was entitled to compensation a difficult question decided to refer it to the Land Reforms Commissioner for his opinion and guidance. The Land Reforms Commissioner by his letter dated 28th January 1954/4th February 1954, expressed the opinion that the Dargah was not intermediary. The position, therefore, was that the State Government, who were approached, made an order, the relevant portion of which was in these words: ".................to inform Sri Shah Maudood Ahmad, Sajjadanashin, Dargah Shah Abut Maali Saheb, that since the estates, the land revenue whereof was being paid to the Dargah by the Zamindars thereof have vested in the State ...........the State Government are not liable to pay under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 any compensation and rehabilitation grant (annuity) to the Dargah......." This order, so to speak, the final order of the Government made the petitioner to approach this Court because whatever remedy he had on the executive side he had fully exhausted. 4. The question that falls for our consideration is whether the petitioner could get compensation and rehabilitation grant for the right or the property which he has lost in the shape of using the amount of the land revenue which used to be paid to him as an assignee thereof. 5. 4. The question that falls for our consideration is whether the petitioner could get compensation and rehabilitation grant for the right or the property which he has lost in the shape of using the amount of the land revenue which used to be paid to him as an assignee thereof. 5. Under Section 27 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), compensation was claimable by "every intermediary whose rights, title or interest in any estate" were acquired under the provisions of the Act. There was, it was conceded by counsel for both the sides, no specific provision for payment of compensation to "Moafidars" or to assignees of land revenue as such. What was claimed on behalf of the petitioner was that his right to claim compeensation arose under Section 45 of the Act. Sec. 45 of the Act was in these terms: "In the case of proprietors to whom Section 78 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, applies or who are assignees of land revenue whose names are recorded,in the record of rights maintained under Cls. (a) to (d) of Section 32 of the said Act, under proprietors, sub-proprietors, permanent tenure-holders and permanent lessees in Avadh, the provisions of Secs. 39 to 44 shall be applicable subject to such incidental changes and modifications as may be prescribed and thereupon the gross assets and net assets of such intermediaries shall be computed accordingly." (The Italics in the section is ours). The interpretation which was put on Section 45 by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that any assignee of land revenue whose name happened to be recorded in some village record was entitled to claim compensation. In our view such a wide interpretation was not sustainable on the words of the section. We have to notice the words which we italicised above; we have to notice the significance of the words "who are assignees" and we have to notice also, very carefully, the significance of the expression "such intermediaries" in the last portion of the section. If the intention of the Legislature was to place assignees of land revenue simpliciter on the same footing as a `proprietor', then the wording of Section 45 would have been different. If the intention of the Legislature was to place assignees of land revenue simpliciter on the same footing as a `proprietor', then the wording of Section 45 would have been different. On the wording of this section, it appears to us that the section contemplated only such assignees of land revenue as were also proprietors and as such would be intermediaries within the Act. Both the words `proprietor' and "intermediary" have been defined in the Act. Proprietor has been defined by Sec. 3(21) thus: "proprietor" means as respects an estate a person owning, whether in trust or for his own benefit, the estate and includes the heirs and successors-in-interests of a proprietor." `Intermediary' has been defined in Sec. 3(12) of the Act thus: "Intermediary" with reference to any estate means a proprietor, under-proprietor, sub-proprietor, thekedar, permanent lessee in Avadh and permanent tenure-holder of such estate or part thereof." `Estate' also has been defined by Sec. 3(8) and it means "and shall be deemed to have always means the area under one entry in any of the registers described in Cls. (a), (b), (c) or (d) and, in so far as it relates to a permanent tenure-holder in any register described in Cl. (e) of Section 32 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, as it stood immediately prior to the coming into force of this Act, or, subject to the restriction mentioned with respect to the register described in CI. (e), in any of the register maintained under Section 33 of the said Act or in a similar register described in or prepared or maintained under any other Act, Rule, Regulation or Order relating to the preparation or maintenance of record of rights in force at any time and includes share in, or of an `estate'." So that, on the definition of the word `estate' there has to be "an area" in respect of which there could be an intermediary. It is no body's case that the petitioner was in possession of any estate or that the petitioner had the right to collect land revenue of any estate which in any sense vested in the waqf. It is no body's case that the petitioner was in possession of any estate or that the petitioner had the right to collect land revenue of any estate which in any sense vested in the waqf. The fact that the land revenue was assessed on an area of land or was recoverable from land did not confer on the petitioner a right to get the land revenue as a proprietor within the meaning of the Act, or alternatively of any estate within the meaning of the Act. 6. Mr. Sharma, on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the intention of the Legislature was not to deprive waqfs of the financial assistance which they had and thereby to destroy the beneficial effect of such trusts and waqfs and therefore it could never have been the intention of the Legislature not to provide compensation for such waqfs which had assigned in their favour land revenue. The Court has to discover the intention of the Legislature on the actual words of the enactment and from no other source. The contention of Mr. Sharma further was that there could be no proprietors who could also be assignees of land revenue and therefore it would be making Section 45 nugatory if it were held that the section only contemplated such assignees as were also proprietors of land revenue. We are not impressed by this argument, for in our view a clear denial to the proposition on which the argument was based can be seen in the Explanation to Section 44 of the Act. That Explanation is in these words : "For the purposes of this section, land revenue which has been assigned, released, compounded or redeemed by reason of any grant or confirmation made by or on behalf of the State or any other competent authority in favour of such intermediary shall not be deemed to be a sum payable as land revenue to the State Government." The Explanation was added for the purpose of calculating the net assets of an intermediary and was not we are conscious an explanation which directly touched upon the interpretation of Sec. 45. Nevertheless, for the narrow purpose of meeting the argument of Mr. Sharma that there could be no assignee of land revenue who could also be a proprietor, the explanation in our view was available. 7. Mr. Nevertheless, for the narrow purpose of meeting the argument of Mr. Sharma that there could be no assignee of land revenue who could also be a proprietor, the explanation in our view was available. 7. Mr. Sharma has, in the end, contended that whatever may have been the position, on the interpretation of Section 45 of the Act, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation, because under R. 41, of the Rules framed under the Act. the Compensation Officer had to prepare separate draft Compensation Assessment Rolls for assignees of land revenue whose names are recorded in the Khewat. We are unable to accept that this rule empowers the Compensation Officer to give compensation to such assignees of land revenue who were not proprietors or intermediaries in any sense of that word. 8. For the reasons given above, we have seen no merits in this petition which we dismiss. But in the circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties to bear their own costs of this petition.