The first question that arises is whther the scheme in so far as it makes reservations of land for income of the Panchayat 1, hit by the second proviso to art. 3 lA. The scheme reserves lands for phirni, paths, agricultural paths, manure pits, cremation grounds, etc., and also reserves an area of 100 kanals 2 marlas (standard kanals) for income of the Panchayat. W have already held in Ajit Singh's(') case that acquisition for the common purposes such as phirnis, paths, etc., is not acquisition by the State within the second proviso to an. 31A. But this does not dispose of the question whether the reservation of land for income of the Panchay3t is acquisition of land by the state within the second proviso to art. 31 A. We held in that case that there was this essential ..!ifference between "acquisition by the State" on the one hand and "modification or extinguishment of rights" on the other that in the first case the beneficiary is the State while in the latter case the beneficiary of the modification or the extinguishment is not the State. Here it seems to i;s that the beneficiary is the Panchayat which falls within the definition of the word "State" under art. 12 of the Constitution. The income derived by the Panchayat is in no way different from its any other income. It is true that s. 2(bb) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prev~ntion of FragmentatiC':!) Act, 1948, defines 'common purpose' to include the following purposes :
