Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a redemption proceeding instituted under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act before the repeal of that Act could continue and be decided by the civil court after the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the subsequent amending legislation came into force.
Analysis: The proceeding was filed when the U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act was in force and the right to seek redemption had then accrued. The repeal of that Act by the amending legislation did not disclose a contrary intention sufficient to displace the ordinary rule under Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, under which repeal does not affect accrued rights or pending proceedings unless a different intention appears. The Abolition Act itself contained no provision transferring pending matters to the Assistant Collector or otherwise extinguishing actions already instituted. The later saving provision in the 1956 amendment confirmed that proceedings already commenced before the appropriate forum were to continue unaffected by the new regime.
Conclusion: The pending redemption proceeding remained competent notwithstanding the repeal, and the civil court retained jurisdiction to continue it.
Ratio Decidendi: Unless a repealing enactment shows a contrary intention, repeal does not affect accrued rights or pending legal proceedings, which may continue and be concluded under the law as it stood when instituted.