Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—The controversy raised in the above said two writ petitions relates to the constitutional validity and legality of subsection (4) Section 4 of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short Act No. 19 of 1973) whereby the adult daughter has been discriminated on the basis of gender by not providing her independent unit at par with an adult son as amended by Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to Act No. 1 of 1974) and also laying challenge to the Constitution (34th Amendment Act), 1974 whereby Act No. 19 of 1973 has been included in 9th Schedule of the Constitution of India. In view of the common question involved in these cases they were heard together with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, and they are being disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the relevant facts with reference to writ petition No. 351 of 2002 filed by Smt. Sukarma Bhardwaj, Smt. Sangita Sharma and Smt. Krishna Tandon against the State of Himachal Pradesh represented by Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Revenue) and Union of India through Secretary Mi