Judgement SEMA,J.:- A common question of law has been raised in these batches of writ petitions, and as such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, it may not be necessary to recite the facts. In these writ petitions amongst other, the power conferred upon the State Government by Section 14(2) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Central Act 33 of 1968) (hereinafter the Act, has been assailed as unconstitutional and deserves to be struck down. It is for this question of law it has been placed before the Division Bench. 3. We have heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Y. Imo Singh learned Advocate General for the State, Mr. Th. Priyananda Singh and Mr. R. K. Sanajaoba Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents. 4. Section 14(2) of the Act reads as Under:- Section 14(2) "The State Government shall have the power - (a) to allot any such land for the purpose of an industry or for any purpose of public utility on such conditions as may be prescribed, or (b) to entrust the management of any such land or any rights therein to the Gram Panchayat of the village established under any law for the time being in force." 5. It is submitted by Mr. Nilamani Singh that Section 14(2) of the Act conferred unbridled power to the State Government without any guidelines or Rules to control and regulate its procedure and thereby leaves enough scope for arbitrary exercise of power, and as such it is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down. In support of his contention, he referred to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Warran Tea Ltd. v. State of Assam, (1992) 2 Gauhati LR 342. It was pointed out that where the provision which confers discretion of the executive authority does not lay down guideline for the exercise of that power, there is every possibility of causing real and substantive discrimination by arbitrary exercise of power and, therefore, such provision is violative of Article 14. It was pointed out that where the provision which confers discretion of the executive authority does not lay down guideline for the exercise of that power, there is every possibility of causing real and substantive discrimination by arbitrary exercise of power and, therefore, such provision is violative of Article 14. He has also referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Papri Bharali v. State of Assam, (1992) 2 Gauhati LR 313, where, it was pointed out that if the provision which confers discretionary power on the executive authority (however high he may be) does not lay down guidelines for its exercise, it shall be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He has also referred to another decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Tripura Guardians Forum v. State of Tripura, (1992) 2 Gauhati LR 366 : (AIR 1993 Gauhati 68) where the same view was taken. 6. It is, however, submitted by Mr. Y Imo Singh, learned Advocate General that the present writ petitions are not maintainable; because the protection and immunity afforded by Article 318 of the Constitution inasmuch as the Act has found place in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Manipur Act of 1963 has been specified in serial number 63 of the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India. 7. Article 31(B) reads as under:- Art. 31(B). The Manipur Act of 1963 has been specified in serial number 63 of the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India. 7. Article 31(B) reads as under:- Art. 31(B). "Validation of certain Acts and Regulations :- Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article 31A, none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed in be void, or ever to have become void, on the ground that such Act, Regulation or provision is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by, any provisions of this Part, and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary, each of the said Acts and Regulations shall, subject to the power of any competent Legislature to repeal or amend it, continue in force." The object of this Article is to give a blanket protection to the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule against any challenge to those Acts, Regulations or the provisions thereof on the ground that they are inconsistent with or takes away or abridge any of the rights conferred by Part 3 of the Constitution. The meaning is that, howsoever violative of the fundamental rights may be the provisions of Act or Regulations, once the Act or Regulation is specified in the Ninth Schedule, it would not be liable to be struck down. This immunity will be available notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary. It only empowers the competent Legislature to repeal or amend it if the necessity so arises. 8. It is contended by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh that the above protection of the Article 318 of the Constitution is not available to the Manipur Act; because it has been amended in 1971. It only empowers the competent Legislature to repeal or amend it if the necessity so arises. 8. It is contended by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh that the above protection of the Article 318 of the Constitution is not available to the Manipur Act; because it has been amended in 1971. In this connection he has referred to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Sajjan Sigh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845 , in Ramanlal Gulabchand Shah v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1969 SC 168 and in the Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., v. S. B. Kamble, AIR 1975 SC l193, where it has been held that if a Legislature amends any of the provisions contained in the Acts, the amended provision would not receive the protection of Article 318 of the Constitution and its validity may be liable to be examined on the merits. 9. It is however, contended by Mr. Y. Imo Singh and R. K. Sanajaoba Singh that no amendment has been made to the Act and therefore the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the facts of the case at hand. 10. Now let us examine whether the amendment has been made to the Act. It will be seen that 1960 Act was passed when the Manipur was a Union Territory and Act was Central Act. By an Act of Parliament, called The North Eastern (Re-organisation Act, 1971 (hereinafter the Act) the State of Manipur was created. Section 79 of the Act empowers the appropriate Government to adapt laws. The 1960 Act was adapted by the Adaptation of Laws Order 1972 any by this adaptation of laws order the words. "Administrator" appearing in the original Act was substituted by the words "State Government". This was necessitated because Manipur by then became a State. Therefore, in our opinion substituting the word Administrator by words State Government does not amount to an amendment of the Act. In fact by this adaptation of laws order of 1972, the Act has been adapted. Merely substituting the words administrator by the words the State Government, the character of the Act does not change and therefore it does not amount to an amendment of the Act. 11.In the result the protection and immunity afforded by Article 318 of the Constitution is available to the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. Merely substituting the words administrator by the words the State Government, the character of the Act does not change and therefore it does not amount to an amendment of the Act. 11.In the result the protection and immunity afforded by Article 318 of the Constitution is available to the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. In view of our findings above, it may not be necessary for us to go into the other arguments advanced by Mr. A. Nilamani Singh. 12. In view of the above, the plea regarding validity of Section 14(2) is meritless and it is rejected. The writ petitions shall be placed before learned single Judge for decision on other points. 13. Before we part with the record, we may observe that the Division Bench of this Court had occasion to deal with Section 14(2) of the Act in Md. Abdurma v. State of Manipur, (1983) 2 Gauhati LR 1 and observed in paragraph 15 of its judgment inter alia as under:- 15. "Before parting with the records we would observe that there are various shortfalls or gaps in "the Act" and "the Rules". Section 14(2) of the Act has perhaps conferred unguided and uncontrolled power to the Govt. There should be some provision to control and check the power so that it may not be misused. Necessary provisions should be made in "the Act" and Rules "to that effect." We reiterate the same views. Order accordingly.