( 1. ) THE questions of law involved being similar and the writ petitions being inter linked and inter connected were heard analogously and are hereby disposed of by this common order. As the pleadings are complete in W. P. No. 4072/2002, for the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts stated therein are adumbrated.

( 2. ) BEFORE we proceed to state the facts we may profitably refer to a paragraph from the decision rendered in the case of R. S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat and Ors. v. Ajit Mills Ltd. and another, (1997) 4 SCC 98, wherein Krishna Iyer, J. , in his inimitable style expressed thus :--

"2. A prefactory caveat.-- When examining a legislation from the angle of its vires, the Court has to be resilient, not rigid, forward-looking, not static, liberal, not verbal - in interpreting the organic law of the nation. We must also remember the constitutional proposition enunciated by the U. S. Supreme Court in Munn v. Illinois viz. , that Courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies. Moreover, while trespasses will not be forgiven, a presumption of constitutionality must colour judicial construction. These factors, recognized by our Court, are essential to the modus vivendi between the judicial and legislative branches of the State, both working beneath the canopy of the Constitution. "

( 3. ) WE have referred to the aforesaid paragraph for the sanguine and sacrosanct reason that in the present batch of writ petitions vires of certain amendments of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity the Code) and certain executive circulars issued in pursuance of the aforesaid amendment have been assailed on the bedrock of certain constitutional provisions as well as Judge made law and we are disposed to think that the seemly cogitation is to be done in the backdrop of the caveat. The modus vivendi which requires a purposive and constructive ratiocination while engaged in viceration of the provision also warrants that a policy decision, a facet of the Legislature or at times a spectrum of the executive though may draw strength and stimulus in all its variation from the greatest instrument, i. e. , the Constitution in a given case and in a particular fact situation if the provisions trespass the quintessential characteristic of Organic Law or Judge made law should not be allowed to stand.

( 4. ) THE score of facts which need to be stated in brief are that the Code was brought into existence by Act No. 20 of 1959 to achieve the designed object that is to say a uniform legislation on the subject, namely, regarding land revenue, agricultural tenures and other matters relating thereto in force in the different regions of the State. It may be stated here that the State of Madhya Pradesh was brought into being by M. P. Reorganisation Act, 1956 and with the aforesaid object the present statute was enacted by the Legislature. It is putforth in the writ petition that it is a complete Code in itself and it envisages how the land belonging to the State Government is to be dealt with and how the other rights of the private land owners are to be protected. We may hasten to add that there are numerous provisions dealing with various aspects with which we are not presently concerned. We will be adverting to the relevant provisions at the appropriate stage while dealing with the validity of the provisions which are called in question in the present writ petitions. It is averred that the Legislature has brought forth an amendment on 16-8-2000 and a part of Section 237 has been amended and thereafter vide amendment dated 27-9-2001 by M. P. Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 2001 a further amendment has been incorporated in Sub-section (3 ). By virtue of the amendment the power has been conferred with the Collector to divert the land from the land set apart under Section 237 (1) (b) and further the terms "on the basis of the resolution by the Gram Sabha to this effect" have been de