JUDGMENT B.L. Loomba, J. - In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner's seek to have issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the District Magistrate, Unnao, dated November 13, 1981 contained in Annexure 7 whereby the petitioners prayer for permission was refused to hold grain and cattle market in an area of two bighas out of plots No. 1641 and 1645 in the town of Safipur Miyaganj Road on the ground that the area for the proposed market was too inadequate for a cattle Bazar. A writ of mandamus is also prayed to be issued directing the District Magistrate Unnao to issue book in Form No. 54 for registration of sale of the cattle at the said cattle Bazar. 2. The petitioner's case is that they are the Bhumidhars of the aforesaid plots and that the petitioners 1, 2 and 3 moved an application before the opposite party seeking permission to hold bazar for sale and purchase of grain and cattle. The matter was referred to the Senior Superintendent of Police and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Safipur and both these authorities submitted favourable reports, vide Annexure 3 and 4, and that the Station Officer Safipur also reported that the petitioners are persons of good character, vide Annexure 5. The District Magistrate despite these report turned down their request. It has been alleged that after such rejection by the District Magistrate, petitioners 4 and 5 have communicated their willingness, vide affidavit Annexure 9 to make available their land for the purposes of the proposed market and that with the provision of additional land by petitioners No. 4 and 5 the entire area shall be adequate for the purposes of holding the proposed market. The validity of the impugned order contained in Annexure 7 has been challenged on the ground that the District Magistrate has no power to refuse to grant the permission to a land holder to hold market on his own land and such refusal amounts to an unwarranted interference with their basic right to use their own land. 3. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in District Magistrate, Faizabad v. Hari Narain Mehrotra, 1960 ALJ 761. 3. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in District Magistrate, Faizabad v. Hari Narain Mehrotra, 1960 ALJ 761. In that case permission to hold a cattle market was initially refused but was later granted and eventually on objections filed by another person the District Magistrate passed an order cancelling his previous order granting permission and directed that the book contained in Form No. 54 be not sold to him. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge of the Court on the ground that the District Magistrate had no power to grant or withheld permission to hold a market on any plot of land in any area. It was also held that the District Magistrate had no power to refuse the sale of books containing in Form No. 54 for which the application had been made. The learned single Judge directed the District Magistrate to sell the forms to the petitioner on payment of requisite fee. In appeal the learned Judges of the Division Bench observed that in the absence of any provision of law to that effect, the District Magistrate had no power to refuse the permission to hold a market or to interfere With the holding of the market in any area belonging to the petitioners and that the refusal of the District Magistrate to permit the appellant to hold the market amounted to an unwarranted interference with his right to use his own land. The order of the learned single Judge in so far as it related to the issue of writ of certiorari quashing the order of the District Magistrate refusing to grant permission was maintained. The relief to issue the receipt book in Form No. 54 was however, refused with the observation that under Para 183 the police Regulations a person can get the receipt book only if he fulfils three conditions firstly, that he should pay the price, secondly he should submit to or undertake to comply with the conditions imposed by tho District Magistrate as contemplated in the said rule, and lastly he should be a selected person who is going to hold a market in the elected site. 4. 4. In the present case the District Magistrate by the impugned order contained in Annexure 7 has refused to grant permission to hold market on the ground that the land on which the market was proposed to be held was inadequate for the purpose. This means clearly that the District Magistrate did not consider the land in question to be a suitable and sufficient for the purpose. Realising the situation the petitioners 1 to 3 requested petitioners 4 and 5 to agree to make available their land for the aforesaid purpose and they have filed documents to show that petitioners 4 and 5 have also agreed to make available a part of their own land for the proposed market. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not say anything to assail the validity of para 153 of the Police Regulations. He could not advance any other argument, raise any point over and above which was dealt with in Hari Narain Mehrotra's case. He has also not referred to any other case law on the subject we respectfully agree with the decision in Hari Narain Mehrotra's case according to which the suitability of the land for purposes of holding a cattle market has to be Judged by the District Magistrate to enable the book in Form 54 to be issued. In the circumstances, the appropriate course would be to direct the District Magistrate to reconsider the matter in the context of the availability of some more land for the purpose of holding the proposed market. 5. The petition is accordingly allowed with the direction that the petitioners may make a representation before the District Magistrate giving out the details of the land which is being further made available for the proposed market by petitioners 4 and 5. Thereupon, the District Magistrate shall consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in the matter in regard to the grant of permission in favour of the petitioners to hold the proposed market and the conditions of such permission within two weeks of the submission of the representation. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.