Mehar Singh, J.

1. In this reference, arising out of a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, these three questions are for consideration--

(i) Whether a pre-emptor in whose favour a pre-emption decree has been given in the first Court should retain superior right of preemption till the hearing of the appeal by the vendee against the decree, and whether the impugned notification issued during the pendency of the appeal against the decree in the present case, successfully takes away the already exercised right of pre-emption of the petitioners (pre-emptors) so as to defeat their suit in appeal?

(ii) Whether Section 8(2) of Punjab Act 1 of 1913 confers arbitrary, unguided and uncanalised power on the State Government to take away the right of pre-emption, and is on that ground constitutionally invalid; or whether when that provision is read with Section 9 of the very Act, it provides sufficient statement of policy and guidance by the Legislature for the exercise of the power of the State Government under Section 8(2) of that Act and thus that sub-section is not an invalid piece of legislation on the ground already stated above?

(iii) Whether the impugned not