https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196459 A special partition statute for a historically distinct royal estate was upheld as a rational and pragmatic classification under Articles 14 and 19. The exclusion of ordinary civil court jurisdiction was justified by the complexity of partition, the large number of sharers, and the need to avoid protracted litigation, while the Board's role was treated as quasi-judicial and subject to fair procedure, natural justice, and writ review under Article 226. The absence of a statutory appeal or revision was not unconstitutional because implied safeguards and constitutional supervision remained available. The challenge based on hostile discrimination also failed, as the legislation was not class legislation. en-us Mon, 30 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Dec 2017 17:25:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196459 A special partition statute for a historically distinct royal estate was upheld as a rational and pragmatic classification under Articles 14 and 19. The exclusion of ordinary civil court jurisdiction was justified by the complexity of partition, the large number of sharers, and the need to avoid protracted litigation, while the Board's role was treated as quasi-judicial and subject to fair procedure, natural justice, and writ review under Article 226. The absence of a statutory appeal or revision was not unconstitutional because implied safeguards and constitutional supervision remained available. The challenge based on hostile discrimination also failed, as the legislation was not class legislation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196459