https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294346 Temporary constitutional arrangements and Article 370 did not displace the State Ruler's plenary legislative power, and the Yuvaraj was treated as competent to enact the Jammu & Kashmir Big Landed Estate Abolition Act. The Court text further states that the Constitution of India's partial application did not curtail that authority, because the relevant orders were limited in scope and did not alter internal sovereign powers. It also says the Act was not invalid for want of compensation, as the statutory scheme left that issue to the State's constitutional process, and Article 254 repugnancy did not arise because the necessary constitutional framework was absent. The Act was therefore upheld. en-us Mon, 02 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Apr 2021 09:49:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294346 Temporary constitutional arrangements and Article 370 did not displace the State Ruler's plenary legislative power, and the Yuvaraj was treated as competent to enact the Jammu & Kashmir Big Landed Estate Abolition Act. The Court text further states that the Constitution of India's partial application did not curtail that authority, because the relevant orders were limited in scope and did not alter internal sovereign powers. It also says the Act was not invalid for want of compensation, as the statutory scheme left that issue to the State's constitutional process, and Article 254 repugnancy did not arise because the necessary constitutional framework was absent. The Act was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294346