Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.73 seconds)Repealing Act, 2006
Section 4 in The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rameshchandra Shamjibhai Raniga vs State Of Gujarat on 18 July, 2000
Hence, the interplay of
provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Repeal Act will have to be
considered in light of the following observations made by this Court
in the aforesaid case of Rameshchandra
Shamjibhai Raniga Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (supra)
:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973
Every law is presumed to be prospective in operation unless a contrary intention is expressed in that law. By repeal of principal Act, its previous operation cannot be held to be beyond judicial scrutiny where such previous orders and proceedings are found to have adversely and prejudicially affected the parties. The right of land owners to challenge the validity of such proceedings cannot be intended to have been taken away by providing abatement of such proceedings. As observed by us above, "the basic structure" theory of the Constitution in Kesavananda Bharati's case (supra) and reiterated in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra) does not countenance such an unconstitutional and unjust situation. An interpretation of the provisions, therefore, that such law does not deprive the power of independent judiciary has to be preferred.