Learned counsel for the respondents while countering the arguments advanced by the learned Attorney General raised two further points, viz., (1) the petitioner 's sthanam is an " estate " within the meaning of article 31A of the Constitution and therefore the Act 895 extinguishing or modifying the rights pertaining to the said sthanam cannot be questioned on the ground that it infringes articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution; and (2) the impugned Act purports to deprive the petitioner of his sthanam properties by authority of law within the meaning of article 31(1) of the Constitution and, as he is legally deprived of his properties, article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution has no application, for, it is said, article 19(1) (f) pre supposes the existence of the petitioner 's title to the sthanam and its properties, and, as he is deprived of his title therein by the impugned Act, he can no longer rely upon his fundamental right under article 19(1) (f).