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

1969 Supreme(AP) 184

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, N.KUMARAYYA, GOPALRAO EKBOLE, A.GOPAL RAO
Pithana Apprao – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, J.

( 1 ) THESE petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India question the validity of the notifications issued under S. 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act. 1956, hereinafter called "the Act". The main attack in all these petitions is on the validity of the Act itself under which the impugned notifications were issued. These petitions raise common questions of law. They can therefore conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) A Bench of this Court thought that important questions involving far-reaching consequences both to the State as well as to the citizens are involved in the petitions which challenge the constitutional validity of the Act and has referred these cases to a Full Bench. That is how the matter has come before us. The attack on the validity of the Act is twofold; (1) under Article 14 and (2) under Article 31 (2) of the Constitution.

( 3 ) THE first contention of the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners is that the Act is offensive of Article 14 inasmuch as it gives different treatment to the lands situated in the slum area and the lands situated outside such area without any re


















































































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