https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308214 Customary law of pre-emption was held to be law within Article 13 and therefore subject to fundamental-rights review, but it was not struck down. The Court treated pre-emption as an incident of property running with the land, so the vendor's title was already burdened and the purchaser acquired no absolute right free from that restriction. Enforcement of pre-emption was therefore not an unconstitutional deprivation of property under Article 19(1)(f). The Court also held that, if viewed as a restriction on the freedom to acquire, hold or dispose of property, it is a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public because it prevents intrusion by strangers and the resulting disturbance. en-us Mon, 13 Nov 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jun 2023 16:49:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308214 Customary law of pre-emption was held to be law within Article 13 and therefore subject to fundamental-rights review, but it was not struck down. The Court treated pre-emption as an incident of property running with the land, so the vendor's title was already burdened and the purchaser acquired no absolute right free from that restriction. Enforcement of pre-emption was therefore not an unconstitutional deprivation of property under Article 19(1)(f). The Court also held that, if viewed as a restriction on the freedom to acquire, hold or dispose of property, it is a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public because it prevents intrusion by strangers and the resulting disturbance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Nov 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308214