https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286717 Section 36 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was treated as part of agrarian reform and, on the stated constitutional challenge, was held protected by Article 31A rather than void under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) or 31. The power to vary or revoke a confirmed consolidation scheme was held quasi-judicial because it affected crystallised property rights, so prior notice and an opportunity of hearing were mandatory. By the majority, the words "at any time" were read as limited to the consolidation process and not as authority to unsettle completed consolidation after repartition, possession and the new record of rights had been prepared. en-us Fri, 04 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Mar 2020 14:39:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286717 Section 36 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was treated as part of agrarian reform and, on the stated constitutional challenge, was held protected by Article 31A rather than void under Articles 14, 19(1)(f) or 31. The power to vary or revoke a confirmed consolidation scheme was held quasi-judicial because it affected crystallised property rights, so prior notice and an opportunity of hearing were mandatory. By the majority, the words "at any time" were read as limited to the consolidation process and not as authority to unsettle completed consolidation after repartition, possession and the new record of rights had been prepared. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286717