K. Parameswaran Pillai v. The State Of Kerala — 1983 DIGILAW 302 (KER)

JUDGMENT V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. 1. The validation of certain gifts under the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 27 of 1979 is under challenge in this batch of writ petitions and writ appeal. 2. We shall state the brief facts in one of these writ petitions, trace the legislative history of the amendment and then deal with the precise attack on the impugned provisions. 3. In O. P. No. 3016 of 1979 proceedings for fixation of the petitioners ceiling area under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Act I of 1964, are pending before the Taluk Land Board, Alathur. The petitioner had executed two gift deeds in favour of his two major sons in 1971 and sought to exclude those properties from his ceiling area. All voluntary transfers effected by any person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area after the 1st July, 1969 in favour of his major children on account of natural love and affection are deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of the Act and shall be invalid. The gifts of 1971 are thus invalid and the properties covered by these deeds are treated as belonging to the petitioner. The Validation Act, 29 of 1979, also did not validate these gifts. The petitioner therefore challenges the validity of the amending Act and prays that direction be issued to the Land Board to recognise these gifts and then fix his ceiling area excluding those properties. Now to the legislative history. 4. The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, Act 1 of 1964, a pioneer in land reforms legislation came into force on 1-1-1964. The Act confers fixity of tenure on certain classes of tenants, provides a very limited right of resumption to landlords, prescribes uniform rates of fair rent, abolishes the intermediaries, enables the cultivating tenants to purchase the rights of the landowner and the intermediaries, imposed ceilings on holdings and creates a hierarchy of tribunals for the effective implementation of its provisions. The Act was added to IXth schedule to the Constitution by the Constitution (Seventeenth) Amendment Act, 1964, and an amendment to the parent Act by Act 35 of 1959 was also included in the same schedule by the Constitution (Twenty Nineth Amendment) Act, 1972. The constitutional amendments themselves were challenged before the Supreme Court in the Kesavanandha Bharathi's case ( AIR 1973 SC 1461 ). The constitutional amendments themselves were challenged before the Supreme Court in the Kesavanandha Bharathi's case ( AIR 1973 SC 1461 ). In that historical decision the Supreme Court upheld the validity of these constitutional amendments. These Articles are therefore under the constitutional umbrella of Art.31B protecting them from any challenge of infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. 5. S.83 of the Act directed that no person shall hold land in excess of the ceiling area and reads thus: "With effect from such date as may be notified by the Government in the Gazette, no person shall be entitled to own or hold or to possess under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area". 6. The notified dale is 1-1-1970. 7. S.84(1) and (2) held certain voluntary transfers null and void and read thus: "84. Certain voluntary transfers to be null and void. 6. The notified dale is 1-1-1970. 7. S.84(1) and (2) held certain voluntary transfers null and void and read thus: "84. Certain voluntary transfers to be null and void. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, all voluntary transfers effected after the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963, in the Gazette, otherwise than -- (i) by way of partition; or (ii) on account of natural love and affection; or (iii) in favour of a person who was a tenant of the holding before the 27th July, 1960, and continued to be so till the date of transfer; or (iv) in favour of a religious, charitable or educational institution of a public nature solely for the purposes of the institution by a family or any member thereof or by an adult unmarried person owning or holding land excess of the ceiling area or otherwise than by way of gift in favour of his son or daughter or the son or daughter of his pre deceased son or daughter, by any person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of this Act and shall be invalid: * * * * * (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, all voluntary transfers effected by any person (other than a family or any member thereof or by an adult unmarried person) owning or holding, land in excess of the ceiling area after the Ist July, 1963, other wise than (i) by way of partition; or (ii) in favour of a person who was a tenant of the holding before the 27th July, 1960, and continued to be so till the date of transfer; (iii) in favour of a religious, charitable or educational institution of a public nature solely for the purposes of the institution shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provision of this Act and shall be invalid: * * * * * Act 17 of 1972 amended S.84 and omitted 84(1)(ii) and (iv) and 84(2)(iii). 8. For the purposes of this controversy, it is sufficient therefore to note that "transfers on account of love and affection" were deleted with effect from 16-8-1968. 8. For the purposes of this controversy, it is sufficient therefore to note that "transfers on account of love and affection" were deleted with effect from 16-8-1968. The result was that a gift made after 16-8-1968 was invalid in the eye of law as it was calculated to defeat the provisions of the Act. However, Justice Viswanatha Iyer in C. R. P. No. 734 of 1974 held that where the gift was made before the actual vesting of the property in the Government, the gift was valid. His Lordship held thus: "What has been done in this case is that lands in excess of the ceiling area are transferred by the petitioner to his son and a daughter after they attained majority and after they ceased to be member of the family. The validity of these transfers will have to be decided only on the basis of S.84 of the Act; and I have held that these gifts are not hit by that section. In this view, before the order which occasioned the vesting was passed, the petitioner ceased to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area. The excess land had been validly transferred to the two donees and hence the order of the Taluk Land Board requiring him to surrender S.8.78 acres of land is incorrect. Therefore, the order of the Taluk Land Board cannot be sustained". This decision was taken in appeal to the Supreme Court and was reversed in the decision in State of Kerala v. Gangadharan ( 1977 KLT 237 ) Their Lordships held thus: "These provisions in the Act establish the dominant legislative intent of the imposition of the ceiling on land holdings and the consequential obligation to surrender lands owned or held in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date, namely, Ist January 1970. The legislature noticed the possibility that after the proposal to introduce the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 published in the Gazette on 15th August, 1963, there might be transactions of transfers with a view to circumventing the provisions of the contemplated legislation. The legislature noticed the possibility that after the proposal to introduce the Kerala Land Reforms Bill 1963 published in the Gazette on 15th August, 1963, there might be transactions of transfers with a view to circumventing the provisions of the contemplated legislation. It is to meet the said situation that S.84 of the Act lay down that all such voluntary transfers that have taken place subsequent to the date of publication of the Bill, namely 15th August 1963, otherwise than in the limited modes specified in the said section, shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of the Act and shall be invalid. It is apparent that S.84 was enacted with a view to making the provisions of S.83 and 85 effective. For purposes of calculation of the ceiling area and the determination of the extent of the excess land to be surrendered by persons account will be taken not merely of the land actually owned and possessed by him on the notified date, namely, Ist January 1970, but also of land voluntarily transferred by him subsequent to the date of publication of the Bill in the Gazette on 15th August, 1963 by transactions not falling within the certain categories mentioned in S.84. S.84 prohibits persons from transferring their excess lands after 15th August 1963 except as provided in that section." "Transfers which have been effected between 15th August 1963 and 1st January 1970 will be treated as valid provided they come within the excepted categories enumerated in S.84 of the Act. The lands covered by such valid transfers will be treated as properties belonging to the transferors on the notified date for purposes of determining a ceiling area and the extent of excess land to be surrendered by him. In respect of transfers effected after 1st January 1970 the ceiling area applicable to a person and the extent of his liability to surrender, which became crystallised on 1st January 1970, will determine the excess land to be surrendered. The obligation to surrender the excess land owned or possessed by a person as on 1st January 1970 cannot be affected by voluntary transfers even of the excepted varieties mentioned in S, 84 of the Act subsequent to the notified date. The obligation to surrender the excess land owned or possessed by a person as on 1st January 1970 cannot be affected by voluntary transfers even of the excepted varieties mentioned in S, 84 of the Act subsequent to the notified date. The transferor will continue to be liable to surrender to the Government the full extent of the excess land that was in his possession an on 1st January 1970." Meanwhile Justice Viswanatha Iyer's judgment was overruled by a Division such in Narayanan Namboodiri v. Land Board ( 1975 KLT 171 ) rendered on 1-1-1974, the judgment delivered by one of us on behalf of the Bench (T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.). It was observed thus: "We find it rather difficult to agree with this view, under S.83 of the Act, with effect from such date as may be notified by the government in the gazette, no person shall be entitled to own or hold or to possess under a mortgage lands in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area. The date so notified is 1-1-1970. Where a person owns or holds land in excess of the ceiling area on the date notified under S.83, such excess lands shall be surrendered as prescribed in S.85. Therefore any transfer a person effects of such excess land to whomsoever and in whatever manner, could only be subject to the liability of the transferor to surrender his excess land. The consequences arising from the transferor's liability to surrender his excess lands, the extent and identity of which are to be determined under S.85(5)(c), on the basis of state of affairs existing as on 1-1-1970, cannot be avoided by any mode of transfer though such transfer may be valid under S.84 or by the fact that at the time of transfer the transferor continued to be the owner of the property (as the excess land had not vested in the government under S.86 because no determination under S.85(5) had taken place then). S.83 and 85 make it clear that the ceiling area will have to be determined on the basis of ownership and possession as on 1-1-1970. Such transfer may not be invalid for all purposes; but they will certainly have to be ignored in the matter of fixing the ceiling limit. S.83 and 85 make it clear that the ceiling area will have to be determined on the basis of ownership and possession as on 1-1-1970. Such transfer may not be invalid for all purposes; but they will certainly have to be ignored in the matter of fixing the ceiling limit. S.84 appears to us to be intended for the purpose of dealing with transfers that have been effected after the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963 in the gazette up to the date notified as per S.83 from which date no person shall be entitled to own or hold or to posses under a mortgage, in the aggregate in excess of the ceiling area. S.87 of the Act which states that where any person acquired any land after the date notified under S.83 by gift, purchase, mortgage with possession, lease, surrender or any other kind of transfer inter vivos or by bequest or inheritance or otherwise and in consequences thereof the total extent of land owned or held by such person exceeds the ceiling area, such excess shall be surrendered does not run counter to the view we are taking but is in conformity with the same. Therefore, with due respect we have to state that the decision in C.R.P. 734/74 does not lay down the correct law on the matter. The Land Board's decision on the question has to be upheld." This decision was affirmed with a slight modification by the Full Bench decision in Ayidru v. State of Kerala ( 1976 KLT 362 (FB). Therefore, with due respect we have to state that the decision in C.R.P. 734/74 does not lay down the correct law on the matter. The Land Board's decision on the question has to be upheld." This decision was affirmed with a slight modification by the Full Bench decision in Ayidru v. State of Kerala ( 1976 KLT 362 (FB). Balakrishna Eradi, J. (as His Lordship then was), speaking on behalf of the Full Bench observed thus: "S.82 which prescribes the ceiling limits applicable to the different categories of persons, S.83 which effectively enforces the ceiling by declaring that no person shall be entitled to own or hold lands in excess of the ceiling area with effect from the notified date, S.85(1) which creates a mandatory obligation for all persons owning or holding lands in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date to surrender such excess land to the Government and sub-s.(1) of S.86 which lays down that on the determination by the Taluk Land Board of the extent and particulars of the lands to be surrendered under S.85 the ownership or possession or both, as the case may be, of those lands shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances, are the four cardinal provisions in Chap.3 of the Act giving rise to substantive rights and liabilities. S.87 in so far as it creates an obligation to surrender any excess land obtained by a person by gift etc. after the notified date may also be treated as belonging to the same category. The remaining provisions that are contained in S.84, sub-s.(2) to (9) of S.85, S.85A and sub-s.(2) to (6) of S.86 are merely ancillary in character and they only lay down the machinery and the procedure for effective implementation of the substantive measures enacted in S.82, 83, 85(1) and 86(1). These subsidiary provisions are designed to aid and promote the successful and speedy fulfilment of the legislative purpose of imposition of ceiling on land holdings and take over of the excess lands as on the notified date. These subsidiary provisions are designed to aid and promote the successful and speedy fulfilment of the legislative purpose of imposition of ceiling on land holdings and take over of the excess lands as on the notified date. Thus, the legislature took note of the possibility that after the proposal to introduce a ceiling on land holdings had been made known to the public when the Kerala Land Reforms Bills, 1963 was published in the gazette, several transactions of transfers of land might have been brought about with a view to circumvent the provisions of the contemplated legislation. It is to meet the said situation that S.84 has been enacted which lays down that all such voluntary transfers that have taken place subsequent to the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963 otherwise than in the limited modes specified in the section shall be deemed to be transfers calculated to defeat the provisions of the Act and shall be invalid. From the setting in which S.84 appears it is perfectly obvious that the legislature has enacted this Section only with a view to render the provisions of S.83 and 85(1) fully effective. This is the objective sought to be achieved by the Section providing that for purposes of calculation of the ceiling area and the determination of the extent of excess land to be surrendered by a person account will be taken not merely of the E lands actually owned and possessed by him on the notified date (1-1-1970) but also of lands voluntarily transferred by him subsequent to the date of publication of the Kerala Land Reforms Bill, 1963 by transactions not failing within the excepted categories mentioned in that Section. When we look at S.84 in its correct perspective there is absolutely no steps for interpreting or understanding its provisions as conferring on persons a right to transfer away their excess lands after the notified date by effecting transactions of the excepted categories specified in the said section." * * * * * What then is the effect of the saving provision in S.84(1) in respect of such transfers of the excepted varieties entered into after 1-1-1970? In our opinion, its effect is that while these transfers will not prevail against the claim of the State Govern to enforce the transferor his liability for surrender of the full extent of the excess land calculated as on 1-1-1970, the transactions will be treated as valid in all other respects, whereas all other kinds of transfers are to be treated as wholly invalid. * * * * * If the intendment of the Section should be fully effectuated the invalidating provisions contained therein must continue to operate even after the notified date, because, otherwise, persons will be left free to transfer away their lands after the notified date, thereby facilitating the commission of the very mischief that is sought to be prevented by the Section. In our opinion, the correct construction to be placed on S.84(1) is to understand the said provision as being fully operative even after the notified date, but the benefit of the exception contained therein will, in the case of excepted transfers effected after 1-1-1970, only entitle those transactions to be treated as valid subject to the conditions that they will not prevail against the Government's claims for enforcement of the statutory obligation already incurred by the transferor to surrender the full quantity of the excess land owned or possessed by him as on 1-1-1970. 9. Thus faced with these decisions, the State promulgated Ordinance 8/1979 and then replaced it by Act 27/1979. The relevant extracts from the objects and reasons read thus: "According to S.84(1) of the Act as amended by Act 17 of 1972, gifts made in favour of sons or daughters or sons or daughters of predeceased sons or daughters by persons owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area are valid. The amendment by Act 17 of 1972 came into force on 2-11-1972. In the judgment dated 5-11-1974 reported in 1975 KLT 171 (Narayanan Namboodiri v. Taluk Land Board) the Kerala High Court held that the consequences arising from the transferor's liability to surrender his excess land, the extent and identity of which are to be determined on the basis of the state of affairs existing on 1-1-1970, cannot be avoided by any mode of transfer even of the categories exempted under S.84. In view of the judgment all gifts in favour of sons and daughters and sons and daughters of predeceased sons and daughters, who were either major members or married minors on 1-1-1970 effected during the period between 1-1-1970 and 5-11-1974 have become invalid." "The intention of the amendment made in S.84 by Act 17 of 1972 was to exempt gifts made in favour of sons and daughters and daughters of predeceased sons and daughters at any time prior to the vesting of the excess lends in Government under the orders of the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board." "According to the guidelines drawn up on the basis of the conclusions of the Chief Ministers' Conference on ceiling on agricultural holdings held on July 23, 1972, every major son should be treated as a separate unit for the purpose of application of ceiling and it should be ensured that there is no discrimination between major children governed by several systems of personal laws." "Persons governed by personal laws recognising joint family system which existed on 1-1-1970 get right to property by birth and the Act allows a member of such joint family to hold lands upto the ceiling limit even after 1-1-1970 as if a partition had been effected on 1-1-1970. Major children belonging to families not governed by the joint family system do not acquire any right to the properties of their parents and there was no provision in the act to allow them any share. This had resulted indiscrimination between persons governed by different personal laws by adversely affecting persons governed by personal laws under which no joint family system existed." "It was brought to the notice of Government that a large number of persons belonging to families not governed by the joint family system had made gifts in favour of sons and daughters and sons and daughters of predeceased sons and daughters after 1-1-1970 and before the date of the judgment under the belief that they were legally entitled to do so. The all India policy laid down in the guidelines drawn up on the basis of the Chief Ministers' Conference was against the discrimination based on different systems of personal laws. The 1972 Amendment Act was intended by the Legislature to effectuate the national policy guidelines. But it could not be given effect to due to the judgment dated 5-11-1974. The all India policy laid down in the guidelines drawn up on the basis of the Chief Ministers' Conference was against the discrimination based on different systems of personal laws. The 1972 Amendment Act was intended by the Legislature to effectuate the national policy guidelines. But it could not be given effect to due to the judgment dated 5-11-1974. It was therefore decided to insert a new sub-s.(1A) to validate such gifts." Thus Act 27 of 1979 amended S.84 of the Act by inserting a new provision 84(1A) which reads thus: "(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s.(1), or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, any voluntary transfer effected by means of gift deed executed during the period commencing on the 1st day of January 1970 and ending with the 5th day of November, 1974, by a person owning or holding land in excess of the ceiling area in favour of his son or daughter or the son or daughter of his predeceased son or daughter shall be not deemed to be, or ever to have been, invalid. -- (a) if the extent of the land comprised in the gift does not exceed the ceiling area specified in clause (a) of Sub-s.(1) of S.82; and (b) if the extent of the land comprised in the gift exceeds the ceiling area specified in the said clause, to the extent of that ceiling area: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply -- (a) to a transfer in favour of a person who was an unmarried minor on the 1st day of January, 1970; (b) in respect of any land which has been assigned on registery under S.96, before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1979." This amendment was given retrospective effect from 1st January, 1970. Under this amendment therefore, a gift deed executed before 1st day of January 1970 and ending with 5th day of November, 1974 in favour of a son or daughter or the son or daughter of a predeceased son or daughter is valid provided the conditions specified in the section are satisfied. Under this amendment therefore, a gift deed executed before 1st day of January 1970 and ending with 5th day of November, 1974 in favour of a son or daughter or the son or daughter of a predeceased son or daughter is valid provided the conditions specified in the section are satisfied. It also provides that this provision will not apply (a) to a transfer in favour of a person who was an unmarried minor on the 1st day of January, 1970 and (b) in respect of any land which has been transferred to strangers under S.96 of the Act. 10. If this provision is valid, the gifts referred to in the writ petition and writ appeals, have to be treated as invalid, for, they do not have the statutory protection of the Amendment Act 27 of 1979. 11. Admittedly it is a statutory concession granted in favour of certain gifts. Advisedly, the petitioners do not desire to forego the statutory benefit. There is thus no challenge to S.84(1A) in its entirety. Shri T. C. Mohandas advancing the main arguments on behalf of the petitioners contends that there was no basis for limiting the validity of the gifts executed till 5-11-1974, that the creation of the classes of gifts dependent on an arbitrary date, 5th November 1974 for their validity has no rational basis for the object sought to be achieved, that, is any case, the exclusion of the gift in favour of an unmarried minor as on 1st January 1970 from the beneficial provision of the section is also arbitrary and that therefore the date 5th day of November, 1974 in the main sub-section and 1st January, 1970 in the proviso (a) are both violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. He contends that these dates have been "picked from a hat" and the offending portions have to be severed and no gift need be statutorily ignored for fixing the ceiling area under the Act. 12. In the same strain Sri Achutha Kurup counsel for the petitioner in O. P. No. 432 of 1980 contends that proviso (b) which excludes the operation of the section in respect of any land which has already been assigned under S.96 of the Act is similarly violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. 12. In the same strain Sri Achutha Kurup counsel for the petitioner in O. P. No. 432 of 1980 contends that proviso (b) which excludes the operation of the section in respect of any land which has already been assigned under S.96 of the Act is similarly violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. The counsel for all the petitioners pressed into service the decision in the case in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ) in support of their contention that differential and discriminatory treatment has been meted to gifts before and after 5-11-1974. 13. Thus the contentions lie in a narrow compass. Do the dates 5-11-1974 in the sub-section and 1-11-1970 in proviso (a) create an arbitrary division having no nexus to the statutory objects. 14. Mathew, J. speaking for the Supreme Court in Union of India v. P. M. Works ( AIR 1974 SC 2349 ) observed thus: "The choice of a date as a basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless we can say that it is very wide of any reasonable mark. See Louisvilla Gas and E. Co. v. Coleman, (1927) 277 US 32 per Justice Homes." This principle has been approved by the Supreme Court in other subsequent decisions. See D. C. Gouse and Co. v. State of Kerala ( AIR 1980 SC 271 ) and D. S. Nakara v. Union of India ( AIR 1983 SC 130 ). 15. Art.14 strikes at the very root of arbitrariness. Arbitrariness can be inferred if a conclusion or decision is reached (a) in total disregard of any statutory mandate (b) if there is no rational basis with reference to the pronounced legislative intent and object and (c) by a non observance of the principles of natural justice where a quasi judicial approach is warranted. 16. The choice of a date in an Act can also suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, though on comparatively rare occasions. 16. The choice of a date in an Act can also suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, though on comparatively rare occasions. This choice should be linked to some intelligible chain having regard to the legislative scheme and object, the judicial decisions bearing on the subject, the practical difficulties envisaged or encountered in the implementation of the project etc. The date cannot thus be "picked from a hat" or "wide of any reasonable mark." 17. Can it be said that the dates 5th November, 1974 and 1st January, 1970 in S.84(1A) are so unrelated to any known intelligible or rational basis, that it has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and are thus wholly inappropriate. 1st January, 1970 is the date notified in the parent Act for fixation of the ceiling area. No person thereafter shall be entitled to own or hold or possess land in excess of the ceiling area. The parent Act is immune from challenge in view of its inclusion in the IXth Schedule of the Constitution. S.84(1)(A) has only adopted this date. It cannot therefore be said that this date in unrealistic or unintelligible. 18. Similarly the date 5th November, 1974 has also some meaningful relevance. The Division Bench ruling in Narayanan Namboodiri v. Land Board (1974 KLT 171) was rendered on 5th November, 1974. It was this decision that overruled the earlier view of Justice Viswanatha Iyer which validated gifts executed even after 1-1-1970. If therefore the legislature took notice of the Division Bench ruling and also took note of the fact that Land Boards would have passed orders respecting and recognising such gifts, it cannot be said that a date which was unrelated to any relevant fact was picked by the legislature. The contention therefore that S.84((1A) to the extent it invalidates gifts executed after 5-11-1974 is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution has to be repelled. 19. S.84(1A) excludes gifts in respect of lands which have been assigned on registry under S.96. This provision is intended to protect rights accrued to innocent third parties under the Act. If the avowed object of the Act is to distribute excess lands to landless agricultural labourers, small holders J etc. and provides by this amendment to uphold these vested rights, it cannot be characterised as arbitrary or discriminatory attracting the hostile operation of Art.14. 20. This provision is intended to protect rights accrued to innocent third parties under the Act. If the avowed object of the Act is to distribute excess lands to landless agricultural labourers, small holders J etc. and provides by this amendment to uphold these vested rights, it cannot be characterised as arbitrary or discriminatory attracting the hostile operation of Art.14. 20. A statutory classification of minors into two categories, married and unmarried, resulting in an artificial division having no rational basis to the legislative object attracts Art.14 and invalidates proviso (a) to S.84(1A) is the challenge made to this part of the amendment. This contention overlooks the definition of "family" which means "husband, wife and their unmarried minor children or such of them as exist." A gift to an unmarried minors serves no purpose for it is even then included in the ceiling area of the family, Proviso (a) therefore makes explicit what is implicit in the provision. There is thus no artificial or hostile discrimination. 21. It is also contended that if the dates are artificial and arbitrary these portions can be severed from the main part without affecting the "statutory formula." It is not necessary for us to decide this contention, for, we have already held that no part of the section is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. The beneficial object of this land legislation will be completely obliterated and the rigour of the ceiling provisions entirely destroyed if gifts after 5-11-1974 are not statutorily overlooked. The legislative intent being manifest, it cannot be defeated by an amputation of the vital portions of the Section through a judicial dissection which is uncalled for in this case. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Amendment Act 27 of 1979 is amenable to challenge under Art.14 as it has not been included in the IXth Schedule and it cannot have the same immunity as the parent Act which alone was given the Constitutional protection under Art.31B. This position has been settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court and calls for no further discussion in this case. In the result, the challenge to the validity of S.84(1A) of Act 1 of 1964 fails and these Original Petitions have only to be dismissed. They are dismissed. This position has been settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court and calls for no further discussion in this case. In the result, the challenge to the validity of S.84(1A) of Act 1 of 1964 fails and these Original Petitions have only to be dismissed. They are dismissed. The Land Boards will finalise the proceedings pending before them and determine the ceiling area of the petitioners and their families and the extent of the land to be surrendered in accordance with law, expeditiously. W. A. No. 284 of 1980 A learned single Judge of this Court rejected the contention advanced by the parties that S.84(1A) classified persons and gifts according to religion and community and was therefore arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. Rightly, this contention therefore was not advanced before us. The counsel for the appellants only supported the contention of the petitioners in the other writ petitions and highlighted the "inequities" which we have already adverted and rejected. There is thus no merit in the appeal either. All the O. Ps. and Writ Appeal are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.