( 1 ) THESE Appeals principally raising the question of constitutionality of West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Amendment Act) and West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Amendment) Act were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.

( 2 ) IN the main matter namely Appeal from Order No. 400/92 arising out of Matter No. 1367/87 (Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) two applications for amendment have been flied questioning the Constitutional First Amendment Act, 1951 in so far as it purported to insert Article 31b; sections 6,7,8 and 2 of the Constitution (44th) Amendment Act, 1978 the Constitution (66th) Amendment Act, 1991 in so far as 9th Schedule of the Constitution Was amended by inserting West Bengal Act No. 1980 Item No. 251 therein and the Constitution (78th) Amendment Act. 1995 in so far as the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1981 and 1986 were included therein as Items No. 278 to 280 in the 9th Schedule. The said applications for amendment were allowed and the Union of India was added as a party. Notices have been served upon the Union of India as well as the Attorney General of India.

( 3 ) THE challenge to Constitution First Amendment Act, 1951 was not pressed as the validity thereof had been upheld by the Supreme Court of India. Similarly the validity of the 44th Amendment of the Constitution deleting Article 31 and 19 (1) (f) form Part-III of the Constitution was not pressed in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India covering the said question. However, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners the said challenges are not given up.

( 4 ) THE queshons which, therefore, arise for consideration in these appeals are : (1) whether the 1981 and 1986 Amendment of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake brevity as the said Act) are ultra vires the Constitution of India : (9) whether the Constitution 66th Amendment Act, 1991 and the 78th Constitution Amendment Act, 1995 are ultra vires being destructive of the basic structure and/or basic feature of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) SEVERAL writ applications had been filed in this court questioning the vines of 1981 Amendment Act and 1986 Amendment Act. The learned trial Judge by reason of the impugned judgement dated 7th May, 1992 up held the vires of the said Amendment Act but sub-section (4) of section 4 incorporate by section 8 of 1981 Act as well as sub-section (5) thereof being consequential to sub-section (4), sub-section (5) of 14t of the Principal Act as amended by section 26 of the 1981 Amending Act, section 14 SS of Principal Act inserted by section 1991 Amending Act and section 17 (2) of the Principal Act amended by section 30 of the Amending Act which provisions had been declared as ultra vines the Constitution of India. However, now it appears that section l4-T (5) of the Act has been held to be intra vines by a division bench of this Court. But according to the learned Counsel, the said decision is an obiter and does not, thus, decide the questions finally between the parties.

( 6 ) BEFORE us the main argument of behalf of the petitioners had been advanced by Sri S. Pal senior counsel and the same had been supplemented by Sri Manna, Sri Saradindu Somata and Sri Bhuyan. The State has been represented by Mr. Sadhan Gupta senior Counsel. Mr. Soumen Bose, senior Counsel, appeared for Attorney General of India. The submission of Mr. Soumen Bose, learned Counsel, has been adopted by Mr. learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners appellant principally questioned the vines of the provisions of section 2 (7) inserted by section 5, section 3a inserted by section 7, section l4-T (5) and (6) inserted by section 26, section 14m inserted by section