Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"'.. The inherent power of the Court to take notice of the subsequent circumstances to do complete justice between the parties and to mould the relief accordingly, is undoubted. Where such a course tends to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is all-the-more desirable that, the Court exercises its jurisdiction and inherent power in this direction."

24. We also find considerable force in the contention of the Sri Narasimha Murthy that on account of the impugned action of the KPTCL none of the legal rights of the appellants- petitioners are violated or impaired. Sri Narasimha Murthy would point out that none of the towers were erected in the lands of the appellants-petitioners. Sri Narasimha Murthy would maintain that since, no longer the right to hold property is a fundamental right, there is no need for the Court to review the impugned action on merit, particularly at the behest of the appellants-petitioners. Prior to the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, the right to property was guaranteed by Article 31. While clause (1) of Article 31 has been shifted from Part-Ill, to Article 300A, clause (2) of that Article, which dealt with compulsory acquisition of property, has been repealed. Sub-clause(f) of clause (1) of Article 19, which guaranteed the right to acquire and hold the property, has also been omitted by the same 44th Amendment Act, 1978. The consequence of these changes brought about by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, in short is that - (i) the right to hold property has ceased to be a fundamental right under the Constitution of India; (ii) it has been left to the Legislature to deprive a person to the authority of law; if such law takes away a man's property without payment of any compensation, he shall have no remedy before a Court of law, and the validity of such law cannot be challenged before the superior Courts on the ground that no compensation has been paid or made payable by such law.