Skip to content


Patel Ambalal Gokalbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 1869 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1982SC1090; (1982)2GLR123; 1982(1)SCALE513a; (1982)3SCC316
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 31 and 31-A(1)
AppellantPatel Ambalal Gokalbhai
RespondentState of Gujarat and ors.
Excerpt:
.....crime held, accused is liable to be convicted in view of credible and cogent evidence of child witness and dying declaration. - we are satisfied with the reasons which have been given by the high court upholding the validity of both the acts and find no ground for interference......the provisions thereof offended article 14, 19 and 31. the challenged has been negatived by the gujarat high court. in so far as act no. 16 of 1960 is concerned the challenge has been negatived on the ground that it has been included in the ninth schedule of the constitution and so far as act no. 36 of 1965 is concerned the challenge has been negatived on the ground that it formed a chain in the agrarian reform and as such it was protected by article 31a(1)(a) and that the same was clarificatory in nature. we are satisfied with the reasons which have been given by the high court upholding the validity of both the acts and find no ground for interference. it is unnecessary to dilate on the reasons given by the high court overagain. the appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to.....
Judgment:

1. In the writ petitions that were filed in the High Court both the Gujarat Amending Acts, namely Gujarat Amending 16 of 1960 and Gujarat Act No. 36 of 1965, whereby the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act No. 67 of 1948) was amended, were challenge and the validity thereof was challenged on the ground that the provisions thereof offended Article 14, 19 and 31. The challenged has been negatived by the Gujarat High Court. In so far as Act No. 16 of 1960 is concerned the challenge has been negatived on the ground that it has been included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and so far as Act No. 36 of 1965 is concerned the challenge has been negatived on the ground that it formed a chain in the agrarian reform and as such it was protected by Article 31A(1)(a) and that the same was clarificatory in nature. We are satisfied with the reasons which have been given by the High Court upholding the validity of both the Acts and find no ground for interference. It is unnecessary to dilate on the reasons given by the High Court overagain. The appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //