1. The only question referred to us for decision in this case is whether Proclamation XVI of 1122, a Proclamation of His Highness the Maharaja of Cochin, dated 14.2.1947, "offends the Constitution of India and is void for that reason". The arguments in the case were heard along with those in C.R.P. Nos. 39 and 40 of 1954 (1955 KLT 406) and the contention, as in those petitions, was that the Proclamation concerned offended Art.14,19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution.

2. The general aspects of the case have been dealt with by us in our consolidated order on those petitions and we do not consider it necessary to cover the ground afresh. A copy of that order is hereto appended and will form part of our answer to the reference made to us.

3. Proclamation XVI of 1122 read as follows:

"Whereas pending decision of the question whether fixity of tenure is to be extended to Verumpattomdars of holdings within the limits of the Municipalities, it is deemed expedient to prevent the eviction from his holding of a Verumpattomdar who has a house of his own in the holding and who or the members of whose family are residing therein: We are hereby pleased to command that until such time as Ou