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

1970 Supreme(AP) 252

NARASIMHAM, PARTHASARATHI
Mehrunnisswa Begum – Appellant
Versus
Government Of A. P. – Respondent


( 1 ) BECAUSE of a common ground urged by all the parties for impeaching the provisions of the Madras Land Encroachment Act. 1905 all the writ petitions and Writ Appeal have been set done together for hearing. The statute and more particularly Section 6 and 7 are called in question as being violate of concept of equality underlying Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) IT is not necessary to set out the facts that have given rise to the several writ petitions because the argument has been confined to the preliminary question of the constitutional validity of the Act.

( 3 ) STATED in bare outline, the contention is that the Madras Land Encroachment Act (the provisions of which are made applicable to the Telangana region too) provides a remedy of Government within the meaning of the Act and that within the meaning of the Act, and that this remedy is more drastic and prejudicial to the party concerned than the common law process in a court of law and that the choice of the remedies is left to the arbitrary and unguided discretion of the Collector or Tahsildar. The provisions of the Act leave it to the sweet will or pleasure of the officers concerned to use or not to use the harsh and











































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