TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Judgment upholds constitutionality of East Punjab Holdings Act, 1960</h1> <h3>Kishan Singh and Ors. Versus State of Punjab and Ors.</h3> The Court upheld the constitutionality of the East Punjab Holdings Act, 1960, under Article 31A, allowing for the acquisition and modification of ... - Issues:1. Vires of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) (Second Amendment Validation) Act, 1960.2. Deprivation of property without compensation under the Act.3. Constitutionality of the Act under Article 31A regarding acquisition and modification of proprietary rights.Analysis:Issue 1: Vires of the ActThe case concerned the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1960, which was challenged for adding to the shamlat land and depriving proprietors of their land. The Full Bench held that Rule 16(ii) exceeded the Act's scope as it was not intended for such actions. The subsequent amendment in Act 27 of 1960 addressed this concern by adding provisions for the assignment or reservation of land for common purposes. This amendment rendered the initial objection invalid, leading to the dismissal of the challenge on this ground.Issue 2: Deprivation of PropertyThe petitioners argued that the Act infringed Article 31 of the Constitution by depriving proprietors of their land without compensation. The contention was based on the transfer of land to the Gram Panchayat without payment to the proprietors. However, the Court noted that Article 31A allows for the acquisition or modification of proprietary rights by the State without compensation, which applied in this case. The Court highlighted previous judgments supporting this interpretation and concluded that the Act did not violate Article 31.Issue 3: Constitutionality under Article 31AThe Court analyzed the acquisition of land by the State and the modification of proprietary rights under Article 31A. It held that the transfer of rights to the Panchayat constituted acquisition by the State, as the Panchayat fell under the definition of a local authority. The Court referenced previous judgments upholding similar legislation and concluded that the Act was saved by Article 31A. Therefore, the petition was dismissed based on the constitutionality of the Act.In conclusion, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the East Punjab Holdings Act, 1960, under Article 31A, allowing for the acquisition and modification of proprietary rights without compensation. The judgment dismissed the petition challenging the Act and made no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
