Four points were urged by Mr. Sen learned counsel for the appellant: (1 ) That the learned Judicial Commissioner was wrong in holding that the principal and operative sections of the Act were unconstitutional and void,(2) that the procedure prescribed by sections 7 and 8 of the Act for enabling the demand to be made was substantially complied with,(3) that even if the Act be unconstitutional, still it must be taken to have been validated by the Madhya Pradesh Re clamation of Lands (Extension to Bhopal) Act, 1957 by which the Madhya Pradesh Act, whose constitutional validity was not open to challenge had been extended to the Bhopal 45 area, (4) that in any event, having regard to the benefit that had been conferred on the farmers by the tractorisation operations, the charges which were demanded, could be recovered under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act.