https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184417 Section 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 conflicted with section 8(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 to the extent both claimed vesting and control over evacuee interest in Shamlat-deh lands, so repugnancy existed on that limited point and the Central law would ordinarily prevail. However, the Punjab Act was characterised in pith and substance as a land and agrarian reform law within the State List, and the presidential assent obtained for another constitutional purpose did not cure repugnancy under Article 254(2). The Act was therefore held valid and operative in Punjab for Shamlat-deh lands. en-us Tue, 09 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Oct 2016 14:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184417 Section 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 conflicted with section 8(2) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 to the extent both claimed vesting and control over evacuee interest in Shamlat-deh lands, so repugnancy existed on that limited point and the Central law would ordinarily prevail. However, the Punjab Act was characterised in pith and substance as a land and agrarian reform law within the State List, and the presidential assent obtained for another constitutional purpose did not cure repugnancy under Article 254(2). The Act was therefore held valid and operative in Punjab for Shamlat-deh lands. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184417