Comentários do leitor

NRI Legal Services California - How to deal with property concerning legal issues in encestral property disputes without coming to India by SimranLaw - Fascination About NRI Legal Services

"Elisha Hilson" (2018-12-07)

Now assume that Part III is completely deleted by NRI Legal amendment of the Constitution. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. To say therefore that because a function is in its inception executive in character, it retains the executive character throughout would not, with respect, be correct. 226 also and that will necessitate ratification under the proviso. 14 and is saved by Art. Bindra, learned counsel for the respondents, apart from contesting the correctness of the points raised by the petitioners' counsel, argued that the petitioners had no fundamental right to maintain the petition.

PXadhAr.pngIf that takes place, it will necessitate an amendment of Art. Principles have also nrillegalservices been laid down regarding the fixing of the value of the original and the reconstituted plots. We have no doubt that if such a contingency ever happens and Part III is NRI completely deleted, Parliament will amend Art. Besides, the function under Rule 30(1)(b) and that under Rule 30A(9) is not one and the same. 844 in such a case is not quite apt. 1 of 1949, that the petitioners had no interest in the said share and, that, therefore, no fundamental right of theirs was affected by the order of the Competent Officer or of the Appellate Officer made in the appeal against the said ,order.

We may illustrate this by two examples. The former is completed as soon as an order of nrillegalservices detention is made; the latter is independent of the former and is to be exercised after detention has -one on for a period of six months. 226 also and deletion therefrom of the words "for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III". The contribution was payable in easy instalments and was towards the cost of the scheme which the local authority had to incur and was not a tax or fee.

" (See 'Rights of Man' by Thomas Paine, unabridged edition by H. " (emphasis supplied). The only question considered by the Court was "The first contention is that the power of amendment conferred by the' Federal Constitution, and sought to be exercised, does not dxtend to this Amendment, because of its character. His contention was that the interest of Abdul Latif Hajee Esmail in the partnership had automatically vested in the Custodian under the provisions of the U.

neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. But what was meant in Sajjan Singh's case(1) was that if there is such an amendment of an unentrenched Article that it will directly affect an entrenched Article and necessitate a change therein, then recourse must be had to ratification under the proviso. It may be that Parliament seeks to amend the Constitution for political reasons, but the Court in denying that power will not be deciding on political questions, but will only be holding that Parliament has no power to amend particular articles of the Constitution for any purpose whatsoever, be it political or otherwise.

Garnett(1) the Court was hardly more expressive. As we have pointed out earlier, our Constitution adopted a novel method in the sense that Parliament makes the amendment by legislative process subject to certain restrictions and,that the amendment so made being law" is. All important decisions of the Town Planning Officer are appealable to a Board of Appeal presided over by a Judicial Officer of the status of a District Judge, and the procedure to be adopted by the Board is also clearly indicated in the Act and NRI Legal Rules.

Article 226 lays down inter alia that the High Court shall have power to issue writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. Every Generation is, and must be, competent NRI Lawyers to nrillegalservices all the purposes which its occasions require. 226 also, and therefore in such a case ratification is necessary, even though Parliament may not have in fact provided for amendment of Art 226. The parlia- ment of the people of 1688 or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to controul them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of NRI the present day have to dispose of, bind or controul those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence.

Hence, the Act is not violative of Art. In our view, whereas the function under Rule 30(1) (b) is executive, the one under Rule 30A(9) is quasi-judicial and therefore in exercising it the rules of natural justice have to be complied with. Therefore, the Act does not vest any arbitrary or unguided power in the authorities and only imposes reasonable restrictions on the petitioners' right to hold property. But suppose Parliament merely deletes Part III and does not make the necessary consequential amendment in Art.

When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this World, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organized, or how administered. We, therefore, hold that there is nothing in the nature of the amending power which enables Parliament to override all the express or implied limi- tations imposed on that power.

In his view, the default proviso was the "control mechanism which eliminates claims that are unacceptable on grounds of public policy". It left no room for the application of the ex turpi causa rule (para 94). [71 C-D; 82 A-D, H; 83 A-B, G] The petitioners have no doubt lost a large extent of land. , and for fixing the amount of contribution payable by the various owners of land. 226, it can then be said that deletion of Part III necessitates change in Art.