Judgment

PATANJALI SASTRI, C.J.I. : These appeals and petitions which fall into three groups, raise the issue of the constitutional validity of three State enactments called

The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 30 of 1950).

The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. 1 of 1951), and

The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951). (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Act, the Madhya Pradesh Act and the Uttar Pradesh Act, respectively). The common aim of these statutes, generally speaking, is to abolish zamindaries and other proprietary estates and tenures in the three States aforesaid, so as to eliminate the intermediaries by means of compulsory acquisition of their rights and interests, and to bring the raiyats and other occupants of lands in those areas into direct relation with the Government. The constitutionality of these Acts having been challenged in the respective State High Courts on various grounds, the Bihar Act was declared unconstitutional and void on the ground that it contravened Art. 14 of the Constitution, the other grounds of attack being rejected, while the other two Acts were adjudged constitutional and valid. The appeals are directed against these decisions. Petitions have also been filed in this Court under Art. 32 by certain other zemindars seeking determination of the same issues. The common question which arises for consideration in all these appeals and petitions is whether the three State Legislatures, which respectively passed the three impugned statutes, were constitutionality competent to enact them, though some special points are also involved in a few of these cases.

1a. As has been stated, various grounds of attack were put forward in the Courts below, and, all of them having been repeated in the memoranda of appeals and the petitions they would have required consideration but for the amendment of the Constitution by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) which was passed by the Provisional Parliament during the pendency of these proceedings. That Act by inserting the new Arts. 31-A and 31-B purported to protect, generally, all laws providing for the acquisition of estates or interests therein, and specifically, certain statutes, including the three impugned Acts, from attacks based on Art. 13 read with other relevant articles of Part III of the Constitution. And the operation of these articles was made retrospective by providing, in S. 4 of the Amendment Act, that Art. 31-A shall be "deemed always to have been inserted" and in Art. 31-B, that none of the specified statutes "shall be deemed ever to have become void". The validity of the Amendment Act was in turn challenged in proceedings instituted in this Court under Art. 32 but was upheld in SHANKARI PRASAD SINGH DEO v. UNION OF INDIA; (1952) SCR 89. The result is that the impugned Acts can no longer be attacked on the ground of alleged infringement of any of the rights conferred by the provisions of Part III.

2. It will be noted, however, that Arts. 31-A and 31-B afford only limited protection against one ground of challenge, namely, that the law in question is "inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by any provisions of this Part". This is made further clear by the opening words of Art. 31-A "notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part". The Amendment Act thus provides no immunity from attacks based on the lack of legislative competence under Art. 246, read with the entries in List 2 or List 3 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution to enact the three impugned statutes, as the Amendment Act did not in any way affect the Lists. Mr. P. R. Das, leading counsel for the zemindars, accordingly based his main argument in these proceedings on Entry No. 36 of List 2 and Entry No. 42 of List 3 which read as follows :

"36. Acquisition or re