Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 27 of 1961 as amended by Amendment Acts 21 of 1975, 47 of 1975 and 2 of 1976-Whether violates- Articles 14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution-Right to challenge, if a constitutional provision which deprives any person/ citizen of the benefit and protection of Article  14, 19 and 31 is invalid, any law on the ground it is inconsistent with or that it takes away or abridges the right conferred by Part Ill of the Constitution-Constitution of India, Article 13(2), scope of-Constitutionality of Articles 31A, 31B and the unamended Article 31C of the Constitution Doctrine of  stare decisis, applicability to Articles 31A & 31 B House of the People (Extension of Duration) Act (30 of 1976) section 2 and House of the People (Extension of Duration) Act (Act 109 of 1976) section 2-Proclamation of Emergency dated December 3, 1971 and June 25, 1975, Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976-Validity of. 

A ceiling on agricultural holdings was imposed in Maharashtra by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act 27 of 1961, which was brought into operation on January 26, 1962. The ceiling fixed by the Act (Principal Act) was lowered and certain other amendments were made to that Act by Acts 27 of 1975, 47 of 1975 and 2 of 1976. The validity of these Acts was challenged in the Bombay High Court. The Division Bench at Nagpur repelled that challenge by its judgment dated August 13, 1976 in Vithalrao Udhaorao Uttarwar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 Bombay 99. The appeals filed against the said decision were dismissed by the Supreme Court by its judgment in Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra [1977] 2 SCR 790. The only point urged in these appeals was that the Principal Act, as amended, was void being violative of the second provisio to Article 31A(1), in so far as it created an artificial "family unit" and fixed the unit on the agricultural holdings on such family units. The argument that the violation of the particular proviso deprived the impugned laws of the protection conferred by Article 31A was rejected by the Court on the view that even if the impugned provisions were violative of the second proviso they would receive the protection of Article 318 by reason of the inclusion of the Principal Act and the amending Acts in the Ninth Schedule. The Court considered whether, in fact, the provisions of the impugned Acts were violative of the second proviso and held that it was entirely for the Legislature to decide what policy to adopt for the purpose of restructuring the agrarian system and the Court could not assume the role of an economic adviser for pronouncing upon the wisdom of such policy. The second proviso to Article 31A(1) was therefore held not to have been contravened.

The judgment of this Court in these appeals was delivered on January 27, 1977 while the proclamation of emergency was in operation. On the revocation of that proclamation, petitions were filed in this Court by the appellants praying for the review of the judgment in Dattaraya Govind Mahajan on the ground that several contentions, which were otherwise open to them for assailing the constitutional validity of the impugned Acts, could not be made by reason of the emergency and that they should be permitted to make those contentions since the emergency was lifted. Fresh Writ Petitions were also filed in this Court in which those contentions were put forward. The Court acceded to the request for the review and hence the petitions.