Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeals Nos. 374 375 & 457 462 of 1976. (From the Judgment and order dated 12 3 76 of the Guja rat High Court in S.C.A. Nos. 1784/73 and 650/74	 1125	 1118	 1123	 1124	 1835	 1836/74 respectively.) A.K. Sen	 S.J. Sorabjee	 M.V. Chinubhai and B.R. Agarwa la	 for the appellants in CAs 374 375/76. S.J. Sorabjee	 Mrs. Chinubhai	 S.H. Sanjanwala	 P. H. Parekh and Miss Manju Jetley	 for the appellants in CAs 457 462/76. J.M. Thakere	 Adv. General	 J. P. Nanavati and M.N. Shroff	 for respondent No. 1 in all the appeals. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG	 J. The eight Civil Appeals before us by certifi cates of fitness of the cases for appeals to this Court raise common questions involving the interpretation of Articles 31A and 3lB of the Constitution of Indian relation to the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act XXVII of 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act '). The preamble of the Act says that it was enacted because: "xxx it is expedient in the public interest to make a uniform provision for the whole of the State of Gujarat in respect of restrictions upon holding agricultural land in excess of certain limits and it is also expedient for so securing the 105 distribution of agricultural land as best to sub serve the common good to provide for the acquisi tion of surplus agricultural land for the allotment thereof to persons who are in need of lands for agriculture (including cooperative farming socie ties	 landless persons	 agricultural labourers and small holders) or for the allotment of such surplus agricultural lands the integrity of which is main tained in compact blocks to a department of Govern ment or to cooperative farming societies or corpo rations owned or controlled by the State	 for ensuring the full and efficient use thereof and to provide for other consequential and incidental matters hereinafter appearing?" The part of section 6 of the Act with which we are especially concerned provides: "6(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any agreement	 usage or decree or order of a Court	 with effect from the appointed day	 no person shall	 subject to the provisions of sub sections (2)	 (3)	 (3A) and (3B) be entitled to hold	 wheth er as owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant land in excess of the ceiling area. (2) Where an individual	 who holds land	 is a member of a family	 not being a joint family which consists of the individual and his spouse (or more than one spouse) and their minor sons and minor unmarried daughters	 irrespective of whether the family also includes any major son	 and land is also separately held by such individual 's spouse or minor children	 then the land held by the individu al and the said members of the individual 's family	 excluding major sons	 if any shall be grouped together for the purposes of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply to the total land so grouped together as if such land had been held by one person. (3) xxx xxx xxx (3A) xxx xxx xxx (3B) Where a family or a joint family con sist of more than five members comprising a person and other members belonging to all or any of the following categories	 namely : (i) Minor son	 (ii) widow of a pre deceased son	 (iii) minor son or unmarried daughter of a pre deceased son	 where his or her mother is dead	 Such family shall be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of one fifth of the ceiling area for each member in excess of five	 so however that the total holding of the family does not exceed twice the ceiling area; and	 9 1003 SCI 176 106 in such a case	 in relation to the holding of such family	 such area shall be deemed to be the ceiling area: Provided that if any land is held separately also by any member of such family	 the land so held separately by such member shall be grouped together with the land to such family for the purpose of determining the total holding of such family: Provided further that where. in consequence of any member of such family holding any land in any other part of India outside the State	 the ceiling area in relation to the family is reduced as pro vided in sub section (3A)	 the one fifth of the ceiling area as aforesaid shall be calculated with reference to the ceiling area as would have been applicable had no such land been held by such member in any other part of India. (3C) Where a family or a joint family irre spective of the number of members includes a major son	 then each major son shall be deemed to be a separate person for the purposes of sub section ( 1 ) ". In accordance with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act	 classes of land	 nature of irrigation facilities provided there	 and the ceiling area for each particular class of land in each locality were specified in Schedule I. This is found classified in nine local areas. The range of ceiling limit varies from 10 acres to 54 acres	 according to the irrigation facilities and quality of land	 the ceiling for less productive and less advantageously situated land being higher. The question which has been raised before us is whether	 apart from variations in the ceiling area imposed by stat ute	 there can be a depriviation of rights of individuals holding property separately	 in exercise of their separate individual rights	 by grouping them as members of one family so as to compel them to take only one unit of land ' in such a way that their total holding does not exceed the ceiling limit which is the same for both individuals as well as families as defined by the Act with some allowances for large families. This raises a further question: What is the unit for which this ceiling is prescribed? It is evident that Section 6 conceives of each "person" holding land as a single unit whose holding must not exceed the ceiling limit. Section 2	 sub section (21) says: " 'person ' includes a joint family;". Thus	 the term "person" is not	 strictly speaking	 defined in the Act. Section 2	 sub section (21) only clarifies that the term "person" will "include" a joint family also. It certainly does not exclude an indi vidual from being a person in the eyes of law. This has been done apparently to make it clear that	 in addition to individuals	 as natural persons	 families	 as conceived of by other provisions	 can also be and are per sons. This elucidation of the term "person" is in keeping with Section 3 (42) of the 	 which lays down: " 'person ' shall include any company or association or body of individuals	 whether incor porated or not". 107 We have referred to the Central 10 of 1897 and not to the State 	 which also contains a similar clarification	 because Article 367 of our Constitu tion provides that the definitions contained in the Central Act "apply for the interpretation of the Constitution". The argument which has been ad vanced before us is that the concept of the term "person"	 having been fixed by the Central 	 this concept and no other must be used for interpreting the second proviso to Article 31A of the Constitution which lays down: "Provided further that where any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate and where any land comprised therein is held by a person under his personal cultivation	 it shall not be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing thereon or appurtenant thereto	 unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land	 building or structure	 provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market value thereof". As no argument based on Articles 14 and 19 is open to the appellant	 the Act under consideration having been included in the 9th Schedule to the Constitution	 the ground now taken is that Section 6	 subsection (2) of the Act	 set out above	 contains a colourable device for getting round the limitations on legislative power imposed by the second proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution. It is urged that this is done by adopting an unnatural and legally untenable concept of a "person" which transpires from an analysis of Section 6 of the Act. It is true that	 but for the provisions of Section 6	 sub.s.(2) of the Act	 the term "person"	 which includes individuals	 as natural persons	 as well as groups or bodies of individuals	 as artificial persons	 such as a family is	 the entitlement to the ceiling area would be possessed by every person	 whether artificial or natural. In other words	 if Section 6(2) of the Act was not there	 each indi vidual member of a family would have been entitled to hold land upto the ceiling limit if it was his or her legally separate property. This follows from the obivous meaning of the term "person" as well as the inclusive definitions given both in the Act under consideration and in the . Spouses and minor children	 as natural persons	 have not been debarred from holding their separate rights to land by the provisions of the Act. It is not the object of the Act to do that. The object of the Act	 as set out above	 is two fold: firstly	 to limit the ceiling area of each holder; and	 secondly	 to acquire what falls beyond the ceiling limit so that the State may distribute it to more needy persons. It is not disputed that compensation is provided for acquisition of what exceeds the ceiling area in every case. As was held by this Court in H.H. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru vs State of Kerala	(1) the amount of compen sation fixed can not be questioned. Therefore	 no [1973] Supp. S.C.R. 1. 108 provision of the Act could be or is challenged on the ground that the required compensation is not prescribed for an acquisition under it as required by Article 31(2) of the ' Constitution or is inadequate. Article 3lB of the Constitu tion seems to us to provide a complete answer to any attack directed against the provisions of an Act based upon an alleged violation of any of the rights conferred by the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. It reads: "3lB. Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Article 31B	 none of the Acts and Regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to 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	 and 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 Regulation 's shall	 subject to the power of any competent Legislature to repeal 'Or amend ' it	 continue in Force". Learned Counsel for the petitioners concede that	 in view of the decision of this Court in H.H. Kesavananda. Bharti 's case (supra) and other cases referred to there	 it is not possible to assail the provisions. of Section 6 of the Act on the ground that they take away or abridge any right. conferred by Part III of the Constitution on individuals	 But	 what they urge is that the second proviso to Article 31A(1)does not confer any right upon any person but only imposes	 a limit upon the Legislative compe tence to that the inclusion of the Act in the 9th Schedule will not validate a provision which a legislature was not competent it all to enact. Such a provision	 it was submit ted	 will not be protected by Article 3lB of the Constitu tion. The contention is that Article 3lB does not protect a provision from invalidity on the ground of legislative incompetence of the legislature enacting it. We do not think that the ease before us raises any question of legislative competence of the nature which could arise if a State Legislature had tried to trespass upon the exclusive domain of Union Legislation. What has been urged is simply that the second proviso to Article 31 (1) disables the State Legislature from acquiring any land below the ceiling limit without providing for compensation for such acquisition at the full market value. The proviso certainly protects	 and	 indeed	 confers certain rights upon individuals to an amount of compensation. That is its direct effect. The argument on behalf of the appellant	 as we under stand it is that	 although	 an alteration of the ceiling limit for each "person" directly by prescribing its stauto ry limit is permissible	 yet	 if it is not done directly by changing the ceiling limit for each person but by introduc ing a concept of "person"	 contrary to the concept in the provisions of the second proviso to Article 31 A( 1 )	 it becomes a prohibited colourable device for getting round the second proviso to Article 31A(1). It is urged that the effect of the amended Section 6 of the 109 Act is to change the ceiling limit for some persons only by altering the legal and constitutional concept of a person. We do not find any fixed concept of "person" anywhere. No .doubt the concept is wide so that it could be contended that it should not be narrowed down or confined	 But does Section 6 (2) do that? Section 6 (2) does not either disable a husband or wife from owning or holding their separate properties separately. It does not merge or de stroy their separate legal personailties. It requires their separate holdings to be grouped together as though they were held by one person only for the purpose of determining the ceiling limit for each member of a family. It may indirect ly have the effect of disabling a member 'of a family from holding land upto the prescribed ceiling limit for a person holding as an individual. In other words	 the result is that such a member of a family will have to be content with a holding less than that of an unmarried individual. It has the effect of making it clear that what have to be grouped together are the separate properties of individuals belong ing to families other than what are "joint families"	 in law. It takes in and applies to members of families other than undivided Hindu families. It means that married per sons and their minor children will have to be viewed as though they hold one lot together even though they retain their separate legal personalities and remain competent owners of their separate holdings. It does not affect either their legal status or competence. It does reduce their individual holdings. But	 we do not find any prohibi tion enacted by the second proviso to Article 31A(1) against different ceiling limits prescribed for various individuals or classes of individuals differently situated. Nor does the second proviso to Article 31A(1) prescribe any particular or direct more of imposing different ceilings on individu als differently circumstanced. A glance at the provisions of Section 20 of the Act shows that separate rights to properties grouped together for purposes of computation only do not vanish. On the other hand	 each holder of such separate rights above the ceiling 	limit is permitted to select the property he or she wishes to continue to hold in such a way "that the lands selected for such continuance shall be in the same propor tion in which lands held by each spouse before furnishing the relevant statement were under sub section (1) of Section 10. The reduction in their holdings would	 therefore	 be proportionate to the areas of lands held separately but ' brought together only for the purposes of determining the: ceiling limit for the family. The whole object of the proc ess prescribed seems to be that families	 as contemplated by the Act	 should be units for merely determination of ceil ings for each member of a family. Appellants relied on Kunjukutty Sahib etc. vs State of Kerala & Anr.(1) where it was held by this Court (at p. 314): "It was not disputed that the ceiling limit fixed by the amended Act was within the competence of the legislature to fix; nor was it contended that the ceiling fixed by the original unamended Act by itself debarred the legislature from further (1) [1973] 1 S.C.R.326 @ 341. 110 reducing the ceiling limit so fixed. Prior to the amendment undoubtedly no land within the personal cultivation of the holder under the unamended Act within the ceiling limit fixed thereby could be acquired without payment of compensation according to the market value	 but once ceiling limit was changed by the amended Act the second Proviso to article 31A (1) must be held to refer only to the new ceiling limit fixed by the amended Act. The ceiling limit originally fixed ceased to exist for future the moment it was replaced by the amended Act. The prohibition contained in the second proviso oper ates only within the ceiling limit fixed under the existing law	 at the given time. It is true that the new ceiling limit was fixed contemporaneously with the acquisition of the land in excess of that ceiling limit. But it was not contended that a law so fixing the ceiling limit and acquiring the land in excess would offend any provision of the Consti tution". Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab & Ors.(1) was also cited on behalf of the appellants. Here the contention	 amongst others	 was repelled that	 by adding land transferred to certain relations to that held by a person under his person al cultivation	 for the purpose of determining his ceiling area and the surplus left	 under the provisions of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act	 1955	 as amended by a subsequent Act	 rights guaranteed by the second proviso to Article 31A(1) were contravened. This case certainly does not lay down that the ceiling limit applicable to each individual must be uniform or that it must be contained in a single statutory provision directly dealing with ceiling limits. It follows that the ceiling limit may vary from individual to individual. These varying limits may result from the combined effect of several provisions. The pre scription of different ceiling limits for different individ uals	 differently circumstanced	 could be enacted directly by a single provision dealing with individual celling lim its	 or	 alternatively	 it could be the consequence of several provisions dealing with differing sets of circum stances. No law known to us has ever laid down that the intention of the law makers on a particular subject must necessarily transpire from a single statutory provision or statutory provisions dealing directly with a particular aspect. To read any such limit into the 2nd proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution would be to accept a novel restriction on legislative competence. We have no doubt that no such restriction could be found in the 2nd proviso to Article 31 A ( 1 ) of the Constitution. It was urged that Article 31A(1) and 3lB of the Consti tution operate in different fields of legislation. Whereas Article 3 IA( 1 ) cures certain possible invalidities in ordinary legislation	 arising from its. inconsistencies with Articles 14 or 19 or 31 of the Constitution	 Article 3lB cures a wider range of infirmities arising from conflict with any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution and necessitates a constitutional amendment so as to protect an impugned legislation by its inclusion in the 9th Schedule to the Constitution. Legislation protected (1) [1967] 2 S.C.R.p. 111 by Article 31A of the Constitution would fall under appro priate legislative entries in the 7th Schedule. But	 to secure the protection of Article 3lB of the Constitution	 resort to the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution is imperative. These differences do not mean that legisla tion falling under any part of Article 31A(1) of the Consti tution	 including the provisos	 cannot receive also the protection contemplated by Article 3lB of the Constitution. There is nothing in our Constitution to bar any statute from receiving a dual protection	 so to speak	 of both Article 31A(1) and 3lB of the Constitution if the conditions of each are satisfied. It is clear to us that the proviso to Article 31A(1) of the Constitution confers certain rights upon individuals and protects them from constitutionally illegal invasion. We are	 therefore	 unable to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that the "protective umbrella" of Article 3lB does not shield the impugned provisions 	against an attack based upon the limits imposed by the second provi so to Article 31A(1) on legislative power. The argument overlooks certain obvious answers: firstly	 that limits on legislative powers	 imposed by Part III of the Constitution	 do have the direct result of protecting individual rights; and	 secondly	 that no part of the second proviso to Article 31 (1) of the Constitution was	 as already pointed out above	 infringed by the impugned provisions; and	 thirdly	 even if one were to assume	 for the sake of argument	 that rights conferred on individuals 'by the 2nd proviso to Article 31 (1)	 were infringed in any way	 pro. visions of Article 3lB of the Constitution are enough to repel an attack based upon such an alleged infringement. Both Arti cle 31A(1) and 3lB are intended to operate as protections against consequences of what could otherwise be breaches of the Constitution. Consequently	 we have to and do dismiss these appeals. But	 in the circumstances of the case	 the parties will bear their own costs. P.H.P. Appeals dis missed.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act 1961 by filing writ petitions in the High Court of Gujarat. The Preamble of the Act state that the Act was enacted for Securing the distribution of agricultural land as best to sub serve the common good. Section 6(1) of the Act provides that no person shall hold either as owner or tenant land in excess of the ceiling area. Section 6(2) provides that where an individu al who holds land as a member of a family	 not being a joint family	 then the spouse. and the children excluding major sons shall be grouped together for the purposes of the Act and the provisions of the Act shall apply to the total land so grouped together as if such land had been held by one person. The ceiling area is fixed depending on the classes of land	 nature of irrigation facilities and productivity. The said statute has been put in the 9th Schedule by the Parliament. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants but granted certificate of fitness under article 133(1) of the Constitution to the appel lant. The appellants contended that (1).Second proviso to article 31A of the Constitution provides that where any law makes provision for the acquisition by the State of any estate which is held by a person under his personal cultivation	 it shall not be lawful for the State to. acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit applicable to him under any law for the time being in force unless the law provides for payment of compensation at a rate which is not less than the market value. Apart from variations in the ceiling area imposed by a statute	 there cannot be a depri vation of rights of individuals holding property separately in exercise of their separate individual rights by grouping them as members of one family. (2) The concept 017 "person" adopted by the statute is unnatural and legally untenable. The concept of the term 'person ' having been fixed by the Central General Clause Act	 this concept and no other must be used for interpreting second proviso to article 31A of the Constitution. (3) The second proviso to article 31A(1) does not confer any right upon any person but only imposes a limit upon legislative competence so that the inclusion of the Act in the ' 9th Schedule will not validate a provision which the Legislature was ' not competent at all to enact. HELD: The term 'person ' is not defined in the. Section 2(21 ) merely states that person includes a joint family Under s 3(42) of the 	 a person is defined as. including any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. In the absence of section 6(2) each individual member of a family would have been entitled to hold land upto the ceiling limit if it was his or her legally separate property. The Act does not debar spouses and minor children from holding their sepa rate. rights to land. There is no fixed concept of 'person ' any where. Section 6(2) does not either disable a husband or a wife from holding their separate properties separately. It does not merge or destroy their separate legal personali ties. It 104 merely requires their separate holdings to be grouped to gether as through they were held by one person only for the purpose of determining the ceiling limit Each	 holder of such separate rights above the ceiling limit is permitted to select the property he or she wishes to continue to hold in such a way that the lands selected for such continuance shall be in the same proportion in which lands were held by each spouse. The reduction in their holding will	 there fore	 be proportionate to the areas ' of lands held separate ly. But	 they are grouped together only for the purpose of determining the ceiling limit for the fan	 and	 as a result of a specific provision to that effect. It is not denied by the appellants that the ceiling limit could have been low ered by the statute. Article 31A does not prohibit the legislature from fixing ceiling limits for various individu als or the classes of individuals differently situated	 nor does the second proviso to article 31A(1) prescribe any partic ular or direct mode of imposing different ceilings for individuals differently circumstanced. [106 G H	 109 A E] Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab & Ors. ; distinguished. (2) Article 3lB provides a complete answer to any attack directed against the provisions of the Act based upon viola tion of any of the rights conferred by the provisions of Part III of ' the Constitution. To read any limit into the second proviso to article 31A(1) that there can be only single ceiling limit for all persons would be to accept a novel restriction on legislative competence. There is nothing in the Constitution to bar any statute from receiving a dual protection. In the. present case	 the statute in question is fully protected by article 3lB. Since the second proviso to Article 31A confers certain rights up.on individuals	 the protective umbrella of article 3lB shields the impugned provi sion against any attack based upon the alleged violation of such rights as well. [110 G H	 111 A C] (3) There is no question of legislative competence. in the present case. The proviso protects and confers certain rights upon individuals to an amount of compensation. That is the direct effect. [111 B C]