Judgement

SIKRI, J. : This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal No. 694 of 1967 and Civil Appeals Nos. 2239-2250 of 1966.

2. In September 1963, the appellants in Civil Appeal No 694 of 1967 filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution (Special Civil Application No. 1642 of 1963) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the validity of the Maharashtra State Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act. 1961 (Maharashtra Act XXVII of 1961) as amended by Maharashtra Act XIII of 1962 - hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act. The first appellant is a public limited company and owns two factories for the manufacture of sugar and allied products situate at Taluka Kopergaon in Ahmednagar District of the State of Maharashtra. The first appellant also held large areas of land in several villages in Taluka Kopergaon for the purpose of cultivation of sugarcane for its factories. In the proceedings under the impugned Act large areas held by the first appellant were declared surplus.

3. Various persons had earlier filed similar petitions in the High Court challenging the validity of the impugned Act. The High Court by its judgment dated October 25, 1963, disposed of them. The High Court held that "the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, is a valid piece of legislation and within the competence of the State Legislature to enact, except that the provisions of Section 28 thereof offend Article 14 of the Constitution and are void. The effect of our decision however would not be to entitle the petitioners to get any declaration that their lands which are held by an industrial undertaking are exempt from the operation of the Act nor that the orders passed by the first respondent on the 28th of February 1963 are null and void and have no legal effect. The lands will vest in the State but they will not be entitled to deal with the lands under any of the provisions of Section 28." The High Court, subject to the above declaration, dismissed the petitions. The State having obtained certificate of fitness under Article 132 (1) of the Constitution filed Appeals Nos. C. A. 2239-2250 of 1966 against the above mentioned judgment.

4. After this judgment, the Constitution was amended by the Constitution (Seventeenth) Amendment Act, 1964- hereinafter referred to as the Seventeenth Amendment - which came into force on June 20, 1964. This amendment included 44 more Acts, as items 21 to 64, in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. Item 34 in the Schedule as amended reads :

"Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Maharashtra Act XXVII of 1961).

5. The petition of the appellant in Civil Appeal No 694 of 1967 (Special Civil Application No. 1642 of 1963) was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated March 10, 1965. The High Court held that the Seventeenth Amendment had put Section 28 and other provisions of the impugned Act beyond challenge on the ground that they were inconsistent with or take away or abridge any fundamental rights. The High Court also held that the impugned Act was not rendered inoperative because of the Defence of India Act, 1962, and the Rules made thereunder.

6. The appellants having obtained certificate of fitness under Art. 133 (1) (a) have appealed.

7. Mr. F. S. Nariman, who appears for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 694 of 1967 and for the respondents in Civil Appeals Nos. 2239-2250 of 1966 submits the following points before us:

(1) That Article 31B does not protect from challenge on the ground of violation of fundamental rights the provisions of Acts amending the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Acts, 1961, as originally enacted;

(2) That the Seventeenth Amendment in spite of the decision of this Court in I. C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, 1967-2 SCR 762 is invalid.

(3) That the State Legislature was not competent to enact the impugned Act in so far as it affects sugar cane farms held by Industrial undertakings and lands o