SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(SC) 58

J. M. SHELAT, K. SUBBA RAO
L. C. Golak Nath: N. Krishna Bhatta: Godavari Sugar Mills Maharashtra, Pragat Shetkari Sangh, Rajgopal Ramdayal Doot: P. Ramakrishna Mally: Srinivas Ramdayal Doot – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab: State Of Mysore: State Of Mysore: State Of Mysore: State Of Mysore – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, A.V.RANGAM, B.B.IYENGAR, B.DUTTA, B.R.C.K.ACHAR, B.R.G.K.Achar, B.R.L.Iyengar, B.RAMAMURTHY, B.SEN, Bajrang Sahai, BASUDEV PRASAD, Bhuvnesh Kumari, C.MATHUR, D.D.SHARMA, D.M.PARULEKAR, D.M.POPAT, D.N.MUKHERJI, D.P.Singh, E.UDAYARATHNAM, F.S.NARIMAN, G.D.GUPTA, G.RAJAGOPAL, H.R.GOKHALE, J.B.DADACHAN, K.B.JINARAJA, K.B.MEHTA, K.L.Mehta, K.L.MISHRA, K.M.NAYAR, K.PARASARAN ATTORNEY, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, LAL NARAIN SINHA, M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.NAMBIYAR, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, M.L.BHAKTE, M.M.GAGADHAR, MOHAN MANGALAM, N.A.PALKHIWALA, N.A.SUBRAMANIAM, N.S.BINDRA, NAUNIT LAL, NIREN DEY, O.C.MATHUR, O.P.MALHOTRA, O.P.RANA, P.K.BOSH, P.RAM REDDY, PARASARAN, R.H.Dhebar, R.K.GARG, R.N.SACH, R.THIAGARAJAN, R.V.S.Mani, RAMAMURTHI, RAVINDER NARAYAN, Ravindra Narayan, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.D.BANERJEE, S.G.PATVARDHAN, S.I.THAKORE, S.K.DHOLAKIA, S.K.MEHTA, S.N.PRASAD, S.P.NAIR, S.P.NAYAR, S.S.Dalal, T.V.R.TATACHARI, V.A.SEYID MUHAMMAD, V.D.Mahajan

Judgment-

SUBBA RAO, C. J. (On behalf of him-self. Shah, Sikri, Shelat and Vaidialingam, JJ.);

( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions raise the important question of the validity of the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964.

( 2 ) WRIT Petition No. 153 of 1966, is filed by the petitioners therein against the State of Punjab and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The petitioners are the son, daughter and granddaughters of one Henry Golak Nath, who died on 30/07/1953. The Financial Commissioner, in revision against the order made by the Additional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, held by an order dated 22/01/1962 that an area of 418 standard acres and 9-1/4 units was surplus in the hands of the petitioners under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act X of 1953, read with s. 10-B thereof. The petitioners, alleging that the relevant provisions of the said Act where under the said area was declared surplus were void on the ground that they infringed their rights under cls. (f) and (g) of Art. 19 and Art. 14 of the Constitution, filed a writ in this court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a direction that the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951, Constitution



















































































































































































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top