J.C. SHAH, J.

(1) NARAYANIBAI is the holder of 142 acres and 8 gunthas of dry crop land in village Teosa, District Amravati in the State of Maharashtra. Bynotice, dated 12/03/1968, under Section 17(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 27 of 1961, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chanduri, called upon Narayanibai to show cause why land held by her in excess of the "ceiling area" shall not be deemed surplus land and shall not vest in the State. Narayanibai filed a petition in this court claiming a declaration that Maharashtra Act 27 of 1961, is ultra vires the State Legislature in that it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(l)(f) and (g) and 31 in Part III of the Constitution, and for an order restraining the State of Maharashtra and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chanduri, from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in question or any part thereof.

(2) MAHARASHTRA Act 27 of 1961 is by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, incorporated in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution. Article 31-B of the Constitution enacts that the Acts and Regulations in the Ninth Schedule and the provisions thereof shall not be deemed to be void or ever to have become Void on the ground that the Act, Regulation or any provision thereof is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. Articles 14, 19(l)(f) & (g) and 31 fall in Part III of the Constitution and guarantee certain fundamental rights, but by virtue of incorporation of the Act in the Ninth Schedule protection in respect of infringement of any of the fundamental rights by the Maharashtra Act 27 of 1961 or any provision thereof is not claimable.

(3) MR. Setalvad for the petitioner contends that in view of the judgment of this court in 1. C. Golak Nath & Others v. State of Punjab & Another action sought to be taken in pursuance of an Act in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution infringing any fundamental rights is liable to be declared void, if that action is taken subsequent to the date on which the judgment of this court in that case was delivered. Counsel submitted that in 1. C. Golak Maths case (supra) it was held that all Acts in the Ninth Schedule and action taken pursuant thereto were to be regarded as valid only till 27/02/1967, by the declaration made by this court, and that actions taken after 27/02/1967 pursuant to any of the Acts in the Ninth Schedule, must, to the extent they infringe any of the fundamental rights, be deemed void. Counsel said that the effect of the "doctrine of prospective over-ruling" as understood by the American courts and adopted by this court in I. C. Golak Naths case (supra) is to regard as valid acts done prior to the date on which the court delivered the judgment in I. C. Golak Maths case (supra) but acts done which are inconsistent with the law declared by this court are invalid.

(4) IN our judgment, that is not the effect of I. C. Golak Maths case (supra). In that case Wanchoo, Bhargava and Mitter,JJ., held that the word law in Article 13(1) does not include any law in the nature of a constitutional provision, and Article 13(2) when it speaks of the State making any law, refers to the law made under the provisions contained in Ch. I of Part XI of the Constitution it has no reference to the constituent power of amendment under Article 368. Bachawat and Ramaswami.JJ., substantially agreed with that view. They therefore regarded all the Acts in the Ninth Schedule as beyond challenge on the plea that the Acts or provisions infringed any of the fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.

(5) SUBBA Rao, C. J., who spoke for himself and four of his colleagues observed that Article 13(3) gives an inclusive definition of "law" which does not, prima facie, exclude "constitutional law" and proceeded to enunciate certain propositions, of which the following are, for the purposes of the presen