Judgment :- 1. These petitions challenge the validity of S.13 of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This section is practically the same as S.11A of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1958 excepting that in sub-s. (2) as well as in sub-s. (3) of S.13 it is stated that apart from the agriculturists who granted the melpattoms bis successor-in-interest is also entitled to the benefit of the section. 2. Dealing with the validity of S.11A of the 1558 Act, Raman Nayar J. delivering the judgment in the Full Bench case in Krishnan Nair & Others v. Abdul & Others (1964 KLT. 94) observed thus: "The substance of the matter with which the impugned section deals is agricultural indebtedness and what it provides for is the relief of such indebtedness If that be so, it is not disputed that the section cannot be regarded as infringing either Art.14 or Art.19. If the melpattomdar is deprived of his melpattom rights, provision is made for the repayment of his money with interest as a charge on the property, and the restriction placed on his right to hold property, namely his melpattam right, is but a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public. And there would be no substance in the charge that melpattomdars are being discriminated against in that, while other agricultural lessees are being given fixity of tenure, the impugned law provides for premature termination of melpattoms. The position of a melpattomdar is more that of a usufructuary mortgagee than of an agricultural lessee, and the impugned section is but a counterpart of S 11 which provides for the premature redemption of usufructuary mortgages." 3. The only point in addition mentioned before us by counsel appearing for the petitioners and which had not been dealt with in the judgment in Krishnan Nair & Others v. Abdu & Others (1964 KLT. 94) is the suggestion that the Act impinges on the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the Transfer of Property Act 1882 These enactments will fall under items 7 and 6 in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution which are in these terms: 7. Contracts, including partnership, agency, contracts of carriage, and other special forms of contracts, but not including contracts relating to agricultural land. 6. Transfer of property other than agricultural land; registration of deeds and documents". 4. Contracts, including partnership, agency, contracts of carriage, and other special forms of contracts, but not including contracts relating to agricultural land. 6. Transfer of property other than agricultural land; registration of deeds and documents". 4. A glance at the entries will show that the legislation pertaining to contracts provided for under item 7 in List III does not deal with contracts relating to agricultural land. Similarly transfer of property regarding which legislation can be bad under item 6 in List III is only about property other than agricultural land. Therefore there can be no conflict between the Act and the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the Act and the Transfer of Property Act, 1822. The matter is fully covered by the decision in Hulas Narain Singh and Others v. Deen Mohammed Mian and others (AIR. 1943 Federal Court 9). The decision of this Court in M. T. Devassia v. Catholic Bank of India Ltd. (in Liquidation) (1971 KLT. 932) has no application. We dismiss these petitions. There will be no order as to costs.