cover image: Supreme Court Appeals  Notes. July 16  1953



Supreme Court Appeals Notes. July 16 1953


19 (1) (f) was applied to test the validity ofi the provisions of an enactment which enabled the Court of Wards to assume superintendence of the property of a landlord who habitually infringes the right of his tenants. [...] 31-A of the Constitution it was held only meant “a modification or the proprietary right of a citizen like an extinguishment of that right and cannot include within its ambit a mere suspension of the right of management of estate for a time definite or indefinite”. [...] 19 (1) (f) of the Constittion has reference to status or capacity and has nothing to do with “Right to Property” Thakur Raghubir Singh the disqualified proprietor in the instant case was not de* Property and Article 19 of the Constitution by P. K. Roy. [...] The disqualified proprietor was deprived of his "Right to Freedom" in the matter of holding and disposing of his property. [...] When a law deprives a person of possession of his property for an indefinite period of time merely on the subjective determination of an executive officer such a law can on no construction of the word 'reasonable' be described as coming within that expression because it completely negtives the fundamental right by making its enjoyment depend on the mere pleasure and discretion ofi the execu-
Published in
Segment Pages Author Actions
Supreme Court Appeals Notes. July 16 1953
xlviii-xlix Ranadeb Chaudhuri view

Related Topics