( 1 ) THESE two matters we heard together because a common question of some importance bearing on the interpretation of a benignant statute is involved in these cases.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS in both cases have a common grievance that the private respondent, namely, respondent No. 3 in each case, was not entitled to avail the benefit of the Madhya Pradesh Samaj ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon ka Udhar Dene Walon ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchkron Se paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, for short, the 'adhiniyam', for several reasons. However, the common contention of law in both cases is that the Adhiniyam must be read as a Temporary Enactment and not Perpetual one, or, in other words, enacted with a limited life, which has expired More precisely, Shri Arun Mishra, appearing for the petitioners, has contended the adhiniyam was meant to take care of certain past transactions and it had accordingly merely retrospective operation, in respect of a specified "time-zone".

( 3 ) THE several aspects of counsel's contention above-referred have indeed raised an important question of law for our decision. It is no doubt true that the Legislature is competent to enact bo