This Court held (1) that the legislation fell within entry 18 of List II and therefore the legislature was competent to enact the Amendment Act; (2) that the word estate applied to landholders as defined by Section 2(5) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code which is equally applicable to tenure holders and occupants of unalienated lands; (3) that the word 'landholder ' as defined in Section 2(9) of the parent Act made no distinction between alienated and unalienated lands and showed that the interest of the landholder fell within the definition of 'estate ' contained in Section 2(5) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code ; (4) that there was no warrant for the proposition that extinguishment or modification of any rights in estates as contemplated by article 3 1 A(.1) (a) of the Constitution must mean only what happened in the process of acquisition of any estate or of any rights therein by the State.