The Consutution.of India, Art. 31-A, proviso 2, guarantees to a person. for compulsory acquisition of his Jand, the right to compensation which is not less than the market value when the land is within the ceiling limit 1 applicable to him under a law for.., the time being in force. Section 1 (3) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960~ provided that the Act was to come D into force in whole or i1,1 part on such dates as the Government may from time to time by notification appoint. Certain provisions of the Act were brought into force by n.otifications. But Chapter IV of the Act dealing with ceiling of holdings .of land was not brought into force. The Act Y.'as amended by Act 13 of 1965. The amending Act deleted Chapter IV and substituted fresh provisions. Chapter IV as amended dealt with ceiling and disposal of excess land and provided fof compensation at :fifteen times the fair and equitaQle re:nt. In the High Court the respondent land-holders E urged that when Act 16· of 1960 was enacted it became law in force and the Ct'!iling limit prescriPed thereby became effective even though Chapter IV was not brought into force by notification under secf1on 1 ( 3) of the Act that since the Amepding Act 15 of 1965 sought to, r•'5trict the ceiling limit and to vest the sufplus land in the government there was compulsocy acquisition of land whiCh: could be valid only if the law provided for payment to the land-holder the market value of that part of the surplus land which was1 within the c~iling limit under Act 16 of 1960. The Higli Courl F accepted the contention· and struck down Chapter IV of the Act as unconstitutional and invalid. .It was _of the vie·N, relying on this Court's decisior in Thangal Kunju M1fPaliar's case, that the expression "law in force' had to be "construed otily in the constitutional sense and not in the sens1 of its actual operativeness." In appeal by the State,
