( 1 ) ). The challenge in this writ petition, when filed, was to the validity of the Gujarat Act No. 8 of 1982 which was enacted with a view to amending some of the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and of the Bombay Land Tenure Abolition Laws. At the time of hearing of this petition, an application was filed seeking amendment of the petition with a view to challenging the provisions of Sec. 7 (3) of the said impugned Act. By way of amendment, it was also sought to be contended that Sec. 10 of the Bombay Merged territories and Area (Jagirs) Abolition Act, 1953 (the Jagir Abolition Act for brief) is prospective in nature and as it has been enacted by the said Act No. 8 of 1982 and which Amending Act came into force with effect from 23rd February 1992, therefore, the rights of the petitioner prior to that Act remained unaffected.

( 2 ) ). The main reason for filing of this writ petition is that, even after abolition of the Jagirs, the petitioner continued to be in occupation of the land in question and thereafter proceedings were initiated by the respondent under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the rights. These proceedings were initiated by issuance of Sec. 4 notification and, according to the respondent, the petitioner got divested of all the rights in the Jagir lands including the right to operate the mines and therefore, no compensation in regard thereto was payable by the respondent.

( 3 ) ). As regards the validity of Act No. 8 of 1982 is concerned, there is not much which can be argued on behalf of the petitioner for the simple reason that the said Act has been placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Nilubhai Nijbhai Khachar v. State of gujarat, reported in JT 1994 (4) SC 473, the said Amendment Act has received its protective canopy of Ninth Schedule and it is saved by Art. 31a of the constitution of India. In view thereof, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the validity of Sec. 10 (1) of the Jagir Abolition Act after its amendment in 1982.

( 4 ) ). We also do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that his rights were not extinguished notwithstanding the amendment of Sec. 10 of the jagir Abolition Act.

( 5 ) ). By Gujarat Act No. 8 of 1982, a number of amendments in different Acts were carried out. By Sec. 2 of the said Amending Act, Sec. 69a was inserted in the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. Sub-sec. (1) Sec. 69a, with which we are concerned, reads as under :"69a (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any custom, usage, grant, sanad or order or agreement or any law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of a Court or of other authority, with effect on and from the 1st may, 1960 all mines whether being worked or not and minerals whether discovered or not and all quarries which are situate within the limits of any land, granted or recognised under any contract, grant or law for the time being in force or decree of a Court, shall vest in and with all rights over the same or appurtenant thereto be the property of the State Government, and the State Government shall subject to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 have all powers necessary for the proper enjoyment and disposal of such rights. "by the said Amending Act, one of the other amendments which was carried out was substitution of Sec. 10 in the Jagir Abolition Act with Sec. 10. Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 10 after amendment is as follows :"10. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any custom, usage, grant, sanad, or order or agreement or any law for the time being in force, or in any judgment, decree or order of a Court or of other authority, with effect on and from the appointed date, all mines whether being worked or not and minerals whether discovered or not and all quarries which are situate within the limits of any Jagir village granted or recog