RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) IN this batch of Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, common questions as to the constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are raised.

( 2 ) THE Act was passed on 31-7-1972 and received the assent of the President of India on 1-1-1973 and came into force from 1-1-1975 according to the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the Andhra Pradesh Extraordinary Gazette dated 18-12-1974. The Act was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India by the Thirty Fourth Constitution Amendment Act, 1974. Earlier, with a view to prevent alienations of agricultural lands in anticipation of the ceiling law, the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienationl Ordinance, was promulgated on 2-5-1972, in and by which all alienations made from that date, have been declared null and void. The Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act. 1972. The said Act has however been repealed by the present Act.

( 3 ) THE constitutionality of the Act and its provisions is challenged on the grounds that they are beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature and that they violate the provisions of Articles 14, 19, 31 (2) the second proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution, and they are not saved by the provisions of Articles 31-A, 31-B and 31-C of the Constitution.

( 4 ) BEFORE we consider the main attack on the constitutionality of the Act, it is necessary to briefly outline the scheme of the Act. The Act fixes a ceiling on agricultural land holdings and provides for acquisition of land which is in excess of the ceiling limit and for distribution of the lands acquired, to the landless and poor agriculturists. The Act contains thirty sections and two schedules. Section 2 declares that the Act is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. The expressions family Unit, holding, owner, person, are denned in Section 3 Clauses (f ). (i), (n) and (o) which are as follows;--"3 (i ). Family unit means:-- (i) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses, such individual the spouse or spouses and their minor sons and their unmarried minor daughters, if any; (ii) in the case of an individual who has no spouse, such individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried minor daughters; (iii) In the case of an individual who is a divorced husband and who has not remarried, such individual and his minor sons and unmarried minor daughters, whether in his custody or not; (iv) where an individual and his or her spouse are both dead, their minor sons and unmarried minor daughters. Explanation: Where a minor son is married, his wife and their offspring, if any; shall also be deemed to be members of the family unit of which the minor son is a member; 3 (i) Holding means the entire land held by a person: " (i) as an owner; (ii) as a limited owner: (iii) as an usufructuary mortgagee; (iv) as a tenant; (v) who is in possession by virtue of a mortgage by conditional sale or through part performance of a contract for the sale of land or otherwise; or in one or more of such capacities; and the expression to hold land shall be construed accordingly: Explanation: Where the same land is held by one person in one capacity and by another person in another capacity, such land shall be included in the holding of both such persons. 3 (n ). Owner includes a person by whom or in whose favour a trust is created end a person entitled to a vested remainder; but does not include a limited owner; and In the case of any land not held under ryotwari settlement, a person who is or would be entitled to the grant of a ryotwari patta or to the registration as an occupant in respect of such land under any law for the tim