TULZAPURKAR, Ag. C. J.:- These petitions raise common questions as to constitutional validity of the Maharash­tra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, being Act No. 29 of 1975, as amended by Act No. 72 of 1975. The constitutional validity of the said Act has been mainly challenged on three grounds: (a) that the State Legislature of Maharash­tra lacks legislative competence to enact the measure, particularly S. 3 thereof, to the extent to which it purports to vest in the State Government the ' forest produce' while acquiring all private forests in the State, (b) that the said enactment, particularly Ss. 3 and 5 thereof, contra­vene the freedom of trade, commerce and intercorse guaranteed under Art. 301 of the Constitution and (c) that the en­actment, particularly S. 3 thereof, which purports to acquire not merely of mines and minerals, major as well as minor but also mining leases, licences and other rights in mines and minerals conflicts with and trenches upon the occu­pied field under the Central Act 67 of 1957 - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development, Act, 1957 - passed by Parliament under Entry 54 of List I and therefore is void. The validity of S. 3 of the said enactment to the extent to which it purports to acquire and vest the ' forest produce' in the State Government was also sought to be challenged on the ground that such acquisition was violative of Art. 31 (2) of the Constitu­tion but in view of the fact that the said enactment has now been put in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution by the 40th Constitutional Amendment Act, the said challenge no longer survived. But the 40th Constitution Amendment Act itself was also challenged as being invalid and ultra vires the powers of the Parliament on certain grounds, but the said chal­lenge was not pressed by the petitioners at the hearing. The challenge to the constitutional validity of the said Act on the three grounds mentioned above arises in the following circumstances :

2. The aforesaid bunch of three peti­tions have been referred to this larger Bench as they involve common grounds of challenge to the constitutional vali­dity of the aforesaid Act but it will be sufficient if facts pertaining to Special Civil Application No. 1553 of 1974 in which common questions were raised for the first time are set out in detail. The first petitioner (Janu C. Waghmare) was the proprietary Jagirdar and owner of the private forest comprised in S. Nos. 3, 16/1, 19, 42 and 147 situated in village Ambatha, Taluka Surgana, District Nasik. The said jahagir stood abolished under S. 3 of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953 (Bombay Act 39 of 1954) and thereafter the 1st petitioner continued to be the owner and occupant of the said private forest. A dispute had arisen as regards the enact nature of rights of Jagirdars including the 1st petitioner which was finally resolved by judgment and order bearing No. WTN/US/2680/69 dated 11-9-1969 passed by the Collector of Nasik by which the nature of jahagir of the 1st petitioner was held to be a proprie­tary one and he got physical possession of the private forest on or about 21-1-1974. By a registered agreement of sale dated 7-2-1974 the 1st petitioner and other male members of joint Hindu fa­mily of which he was the Karta, agreed to sell all the teak and injaili trees (10,700 teak trees and 12,000 injaili trees) grown in the said private forest to the 3rd petitioner-firm of which the 2nd petitioner was a partner. The said con­tract for sale of the trees and the bene­fits thereunder were subsequently as­signed with the consent of the 1st peti­tioner and the members of his joint family, to the 5th petitioner-firm of which the 4th petitioner was a partner. No sooner the agreement for sale of trees was entered into by the 1st peti­tioner on 7-2-1974 with the 3rd peti­tioner-firm the 1st petitioner made an application to the Tehsildar of Surgana Taluka for permission to fell the teak trees under S. 3 o