ORDER

We have perused the order of the High Court dated November 24, 1975. The only question raised relates to the validity of the Ordinance which has already been upheld by the Full Bench of that Court. It was argued ralating to legislative competency. Since it is a matter relating to land reform and land, it is covered by Schedule 7, List II, item Nos. 14 and 18. As a result, the impugned Act is within the legislative competence of the State legislature. It is then contended that it is violative of Art. 14. We find no force in the contention. Since the legislature is competent to enact the law, all the agricultural holdings covered under the Act are equally regulated thereunder. Therefore, there is no discrimination violating Art. 14. It is next urged that the procedure prescribed is in violation of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Central Act. We find no force in the contention. The procedure is only supplemental or residual to the main purpose of the Act. CPC is in the Concurrent List. The Act received assent of the President. The legistature, therefore, is competent to provide procedure in the implementation of the provisions of the Act. Next submission is that the trial