JUDGMENT : P.N. Bhagwati, J. These two appeals by the State of Punjab are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana declaring certain provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 unconstitutional on the ground that they violate the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31-A of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of the whole Act was challenged in the writ petitions giving rise to these two appeals, but the High Court negatived the challenge and upheld the constitutional validity of the Act save in regard to those provisions which created an artificial concept of a family and provide for clubbing together of land held by each member of the family for the purpose of applying the limitation of permissible area. We will briefly refer to these provisions which have been struck down by the High Court as constitutionally invalid. Section 3 is the definition section and clause (10) of that section defines 'person' to include inter alia a family. The expression 'family' is defined in clause (4) of Section 3 by saying that 'family' in relation to a person means the person, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such person and his or her minor children, other than a married minor daughter. It is obviously an artificial definition of family because family, as known in ordinary parlance, would include not only minor children but also major sons and unmarried daughters, whereas 'family' as defined here excludes major sons and unmarried daughters, Section 4, sub-section (1) provides that subject to the provisions of Section 5, no person shall own or hold land as landowner or tenant or partly as landowner and partly as tenant in excess of the permissible area and sub-section (2) of that section lays down what shall be the permissible area in respect of different classes of land. There is proviso (ii) to sub-section (2) of Section 4 which says that where the number of members of a family exceeds five, the permissible area shall be increased by one-fifth of the permissible area for each members in excess of five, subject to the condition that additional land shall be allowed for not more than three such members. There is proviso (ii) to sub-section (2) of Section 4 which says that where the number of members of a family exceeds five, the permissible area shall be increased by one-fifth of the permissible area for each members in excess of five, subject to the condition that additional land shall be allowed for not more than three such members. Sub-section (4) of Section 4 has two clauses which read as follows : "(a) where a person is a member of a registered co-operative farming society, his share in the land held by such society together with his other land, if any, or if such person is a member of a family, together with the land held by every member of the family shall be taken into account for determining the permissible area; (b) where a person is a member of a family, the land held by such person together with the land held by every other member of the family, whether individually or jointly, shall be taken into account for determining the permissible area." It will thus be seen that under the provisions of the Act the land held by each member of a family as defined in Section 3, clause (4), whether individually or jointly, is required to be pooled together and taken into account for determining the applicability of the permissible area. The argument of the respondents, which found favour with the High Court, was that these provisions are violative of the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31-A inasmuch as they permit acquisition of land held by a member of a family under his personal cultivation, though it might be within the permissible area for an individual, without payment of full market value as compensation and hence they are constitutionally invalid. This view taken by the High Court is assailed in the present appeals before this Court. 2. This view taken by the High Court is assailed in the present appeals before this Court. 2. Now, it may be pointed out straightway that when the High Court delivered its judgment on 14th February, 1974, the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 was not included in the Ninth Schedule and hence it was not possible for the State to invoke the protection of Article 31-B. But subsequently the Act has been included in the Ninth Schedule as Entry 78 by the Constitutional (Thirty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1974 and hence it is now entitled to the immunity conferred by Article 31-B. We had occasion to consider a similar question arising under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961 where also an artificial concept of a family unit is created and lands held by each member of the family unit are aggregated together for the purpose of applying the limitation of ceiling area. The relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961 are in fact almost identical with the impugned provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972. While dealing with the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961 in Civil Appeals Nos. 1132-1164 of 1976, we have pointed out in a judgment delivered today that these provisions introducing the concept of a family unit and clubbing together lands held by each member of the family unit and applying the limitation of ceiling area in reference to the aggregation of such lands are not violative of the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31-A and even if they were, they are protected by Article 31-B. The reasoning which has prevailed with us for sustaining the validity of the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961 must apply equally in the present cases arising under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and we must hold that the impugned provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 are not in conflict with the second proviso to clause (1) of Article 31-A and in any event, they are protected from invalidation under Article 31-B. 3. We may point out that the same view has been taken by this Court in regard to the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act (27 of 1961) in Hanamukhlal v. State of Gujarat, (1976)4 S.C.C. 100 . We may point out that the same view has been taken by this Court in regard to the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act (27 of 1961) in Hanamukhlal v. State of Gujarat, (1976)4 S.C.C. 100 . The relevant provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 are almost the same as those of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act (27 of 1961) which were upheld as constitutionally valid in Hanamukhlal's case (supra). 4. We accordingly negative the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and hold that it does not suffer from any of the constitutional infirmities alleged in the writ petitions. The appeals are accordingly allowed with costs in favour of the appellant. There will be only one set of costs. Appeal accepted.