G.C.MATHUR,J. - (1.) THE fol­lowing four questions have been referred to us for opinion: Whether the acquisition of land under personal cultivation as surplus after ignoring sale-deed under Section 5(6) of the U.P. Im­position of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act is violative of second pro­viso to Article 31-A (1) of the Constitution ? Whether ignoring transfers made after January 24, 1971, other than those excepted under Proviso to Section 5 (6) of the Act. both in relation to the determination of ceiling and surplus area, would am­ount to acquiring any portion of land under personal cultivation with­in the ceiling limit applicable to a person under the ceiling law for the time being in force ? Whether, inspite of the protection afforded by Article 31-B of the Constitution by virtue of inclusion of U.P. Act I of 1961 and the two Amending Acts, namely, U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973 and U.P. Act No. 2 of 1975, in the IX Schedule to the Constitution, compliance would still be necessary of the provisions of second Proviso to Article 31-A (1) of the Constitution? Whether, inspite of protection having been given under Article 31-C of the Constitution to U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973 and U.P. Act No. 2 of 1975 by virtue of a declaration made in Section 2 of each of these Acts that these Acts are for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution, is it still necessary to comply with the provisions of the Second Proviso to Article 31-A (1) of the Constitu­tion?
(2.) THE U.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, came into force on January 31, 1961. The Act. as originally enacted (hereinafter refer­red to as the Principal Act), laid down in Section 4 (2) that the ceil-in e area of a tenure-holder shall be 40 acres of the fair quality land. If the family of the tenure-holder consisted of more than five mem­bers, the ceiling area was to be 40 acres plus 8 acres for each additional member of the family subject to a maximum of 24 such acres. The Principal Act was placed in the IX Schedule to the Constitution by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964. It there­upon became immune from all attacks on the ground of inconsistency with any provision contained in Part III of the Constitution. The Act was amended several times but we are not concerned with all the Amending Acts. Substantial amendments were introduced by the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973). A number of sections of the Princi­pal Act were substituted by new sections by this Amending Act. Sub­section (3) of the substituted Section 5 provides that, in the case of tenure-holder having a family of not more than five members, the ceiling area shall be 7.30 hectares of irrigated land. It then provides for addition to the ceiling area for additional members of the family. In substance, the Amending Act lowered the ceiling area from 40 acres to about 18 acres. Some more amendments were introduced by the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1974 (U.P. Act No. 2. of 1975) but the ceiling area was not further lowered. Both these Amending Acts were placed in the IX Schedule by the Constitution (Thirty-nineth Amendment) Act, 1975 Clause (1) of Article 31-A of the Constitution saves five catego­ries of laws from being declared void on the ground that they are in­consistent with or take away or abridge any of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 or 31. The second proviso to this clause reads thus: - "Provided further that where any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate and where any land comprised therein is held by a person under his personal cultiva­tion, it shall not be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land, building or structure, provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof."
(3.) THE contention before the learned Single Judge was that sub-Section (6) of Section 5 of the Amended Act, which empowers the Prescribed Authority to ignore and not to take into account certain transfers of land made after January 24, 1971, results, in some cases, in lowering the ceiling area of tenure-holders below the ceiling limit. Since the amended Act does not provide for the payment of com­pensation at a rate not less than the market value of -the land for the portion of the land acquired within the ceiling limit, the acquisition of such land was in contravention of the second proviso to Article 31-A (1) and was void. This contention was sought to be met on the ground that, since the Principal Act as well as the Amending Acts have been placed in the IX Schedule, they are immune from the at­tack on the ground of violation of any provision of Part III. including the second proviso to Article 31-A (1). It also seems to have been urged before the learned Single Judge that Article 31-C also saves •these laws from an attack on the ground of violation of the second proviso to Art. 31-A (1), It is these rival contentions which have led to this reference.;