Judgment :- 1. What is challenged by the petitioner is Explanation to the proviso to S.84(1A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act which reads: "For the purposes of clause (b) a land shall be deemed to have been assigned on registry if the purchase price payable for the assignment of that land or the first instalment thereof has been deposited as required by the rules made under this Act." S. 84 has been enacted for the purpose of treating certain voluntary transfers as null and void. But certain exceptions have been made in sub-s. (1A) of S.84 protecting certain transfers from this mischief. Transfer in favour of a person who was an unmarried minor on the 1st day of January, 1970 is one type of transfer which does not attract the prohibition contained in S.84. Toe other one with which we are concerned is this case is the one dealt with in clause (b) to the proviso to S 84(1A) which deals with land which has been assigned on registry under S.96, before the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1979. This provision is not challenged as violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. What is however challenged is the Explanation which has a bearing on clause (b). By the Explanation a fiction is created that for the purposes of clause (b), a land shall be deemed to have been assigned on registry if the purchase price payable for the assignment of that land or the first instalment thereof has been deposited as required by the rules made under the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by this Explanation a deeming provision has been brought into existence which treats on par the two classes of persons who do not satisfy all the conditions for the assignment on registry becoming complete. Hence it is contended that there has been discrimination brought about in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. The class of transfers dealt with is governed by S.96. In other words, grantees under the very Act are sought to be protected so that they do not lose the benefit of such grant made under one provision of the Act by applying another provision of the Act against those persons. The class of transfers dealt with is governed by S.96. In other words, grantees under the very Act are sought to be protected so that they do not lose the benefit of such grant made under one provision of the Act by applying another provision of the Act against those persons. It is necessary to point out that the assignment is liable to be made under S.96 in favour of weaker sections of the community. When such is the position, the Legislature has proceeded to protect the interests of those who have been considered fit and deserving the benefit of assignment under S.96. Hence it cannot prima facie be considered as something unjust or discriminatory, which is not permissible in law. 2. Even otherwise we are inclined to take the view that Art.31 C prefects the Explanation from attack an the basis of Art.14 of the Constitution. The Explanation has been added by Kerala Act 19 of 1981. This Act was reserved for consideration of the President and was assented to by the President on the 14th of August, 1981 The Kerala Land Reforms Act including the provision in question is law regarding agrarian reforms which has been enacted to achieve the objects contained in Art.38 and 39 of Part IV of the Constitution. Hence all the conditions in Art.31 C having been fully satisfied in this case, the Explanation is immune from the attack of Art.14. Hence we have no hesitation in taking the view that the challenge to the explanation to the proviso to sub-section (1A) of S.84 fails and therefore the original petition is dismissed. No costs.