( 1 ) MR. Nanavati however pointed out that the State Legislature has also enacted the Bombay Land Tenures Abolition (Recovery of Records Act 1953 being Act of 1953 under which a notice has been issued to the appellants to deliver up to the Collector or to an officer appointed by the State Government in that behalf all the land records relating to these villages and lands maintained by them so far Mr. Nanavati argued that the State was not entitled to call upon the appellants to deliver up these records as Act L of 1953 was not within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and that even if it were to be so calling upon the appellants to deliver up the records would amount to acquisition or deprivation within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution and would be contrary to the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g ). Such deprivation would be bad in law as it is sought to be made without any compensation payable to the appellants under the Act or otherwise.

( 2 ) SEC. 2 of the Bombay Act L of 1953 defines holder as including a Mulgirasia as defined or referred to in the Bombay Merged Territories (Baroda Mulgiras Tenure Abolition) Act 1953 and also includes a person who for the time being is in possession of the land records on behalf of such holder. Clause (3) of sec. 2 defines `land records as meaning records maintained by a holder in respect of the land or village held by him at any time before the abolition of the tenure on which such land or village was held. Sec. 3 then provides that it shall be the duty of every holder to deliver in the prescribed manner within two months from such date as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify in that behalf all land records in his possession to the Collector or to such officer as may be appointed by the State Government in that behalf. Lastly sec. 4 provides that if the Collector or the officer appointed under sec. 3 has reason to believe that any holder is not likely to deliver the land records as required by sec. 3 or is likely to destroy them or tamper with there he may for the purpose of recovering such records issue a search warrant and exercise all such powers with respect thereto as may be lawfully exercised by a Magistrate under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 3 ) THE object of the Legislature in enacting this Act presumably was that on the resumption of lands and villages under any one of the Land Tenures Abolition Acts the holders thereof would cease to have any rights over such lands except as ordinary occupants under the Land Revenue Code and therefore it would be expedient to have the land records in respect of such lands and villages in the custody of the State Government because it would be the State Government who on and after the resumption would have to deal with such lands and Valises and also the persons who henceforth would hold those lands or villages as occupants or otherwise. The preamble of the Act provides the key to the object for which the statute was enacted. As the preamble states it was expedient to provide for taking over records maintained by the holders of lands or villages held on tenures which have been abolished by various Land Tenures Abolition Acts and hence this particular Act was enacted.

( 4 ) ON the contentions raised by Mr. Nanavati the first question that falls for determination is:whether the Act is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature ? mr. Nanavati argued that it did not fall within any of the items in List all in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader referred however two items in that List viz. items 18 and 45. Item 18 deals with land and runs as follows : land that is to say rights in or over land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; improvement and agricultural lo