MASODKAR, J. :- These 2661 cases have clogged the Court's corridors for considerable time, challenging the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No.27 of 1961) as amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act No.21 of 1975) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Amendment Act, 1975 (Act No.47 of 1975) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Act No.2 of 1976).

2. The petitioners raised almost common questions and the petitions can be decided by an order indicating separate points urged in support of different petitioners' claims. It is assumed and not disputed that the petitioner in each petition is aggrieved by the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No.27 of 1961) as amended and in issue.

3. At the outset it must be stated that in Special Civil Application No.49 of 1976, decided by this Court on 22nd and 24th of June 1976 (Madanlal Rupchand Jethalia v. State of Maharashtra), the same said enactments were found to be valid. However, the contention, as we will indicate hereinafter, advanced on behalf of the petitioners at considerable length, is that that decision has not been rendered correctly and there is an obvious possibility of the contrary view on the matter and therefore the matter requires reconsideration. It has also been urged that some of the grounds raised by these petitioners were not raised nor are decided by that decision.

4. We thought it just and reasonable to give full hearing to the petitioners looking to the fact that from the eight districts of Vidarbha more than two thousand land-holders feel themselves aggrieved by the legislative enactment regarding the lowering of ceiling on holdings of agricultural land. Prima facie under the new process contemplated by law they are aggrieved. Indeed in the economic structure of the agrarian society in this country love for land haunts the life of men and sometimes tends to become oppressive means of aggrandisement. Though objectival premises of the present Act are meant to secure egalitarian economics in the field of agriculture by pre-empting regulatory limits on holdings and further providing for equitable distribution of surplus land to landless, here before us is a mass of men complaining that its terms are unjust, unfair, unreasonable and above all unauthorised by the constitutional contemplation. Judicial scrutiny of such measures is the part of social engineering in a democratic setup that adds vitality to the rule of law and acts as a balm to the rancouring and brooding sense of injustice

5. We must observe at the threshold that once the co-ordinate Bench of this Court finds on a point and upholds the validity of the enactment, the issue as for as this Court is concerned clearly stands adjudicated. Unless the petitioners succeed in making out a case that the said judgment requires reconsideration and persuade us to take contrary view, the matter is not open as we are bound by the same.

6. The impugned Acts Nos.21 and 47 of 1975 and Act No.2 of 1976 are the Amending Acts to the original Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act (Act No.27 of 1961). All these enactments have been put in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976. The original Act as amended from time to time was also put under the protection of the said Schedule by Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, followed by Constitution (Thirty-Ninth Amendment) Act, so as to cover the entire body of the Acts along with the Amending Acts. The purpose of these enactments is the agrarian reforms by providing for ceiling on the holdings of agricultural lands and further providing for finding surplus agricultural land and its acquisition for equitable distribution thereof. By Maharasht