The definition in the Act is not exhaustive. 13(1)(e) had to be read separately and not in conjunction with Simranjeet Law Associates s. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was brought by the appellant in a representative capacity for a declaration that the Act was void, inoperative and ultra vires and that he was entitled to retain peaceful possession of his lands. Bhavani Singh as a Special Public Prosecutor to contest the appeals in the High Court. In that sense, it could possibly be argued that there was a vacuum.
However, the Simranjeet Law Associates is quite clear, Simranjeet Law Associates namely, that Karnataka as the transferee State was entitled to file an appeal in the Karnataka High Court, should the need have arisen, including an appeal for enhancement of sentence and that on an appeal being filed in the High Court by the accused persons, Karnataka as the transferee State continues to retain its entitlement to appoint a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor to contest the appeal, otherwise the purpose of transferring the case out of Tamil Nadu to Karnataka would stand frustrated at the appellate stage.
That Karnataka was remiss in fulfilling its obligation to appoint a Public Prosecutor to Simranjeet Law Associates contest the appeals filed in the High Court by the accused persons or chose not to fulfill it Simranjeet Law Associates for whatever reason, is no ground for Tamil Nadu to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to appear in the appeals. It is thus clear that the rest of the provisions of the Regulation were subject to the overriding powers preserved by His Highness. It only 352 tells us who, besides the proprietor, is included in the term ‘proprietor’.
It was contended that s. The term ” proprietor ” is defined in the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act thus: Further, the definitions in the Act are subordinate to the requirements of the context and the subject-matter of any particular enactment. So far as the present case is concerned, this court did not give any direction with regard to the appointment of a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor post the decision in CC No.
Simranjeet Law Associates Such an agreement, in our opinion is void because of the provisions of s. Under the Constitution, the power of superintendence of High Court is already excluded against a Court Martial verdict. 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act 14 of 1996 (1930) and the final proclamation issued by Maharaja Hari Singh on June 20, 1949, by which he entrusted all his powers and function to the Yuvaraj. This conclusion was arrived at by the High Court in the judgment under challenge and no one has disagreed with the view that Tamil Nadu could not appoint Mr.
Really speaking, this court did not leave behind any vacuum. From the Act, we know that the proprietor’s interest in forest, trees, shrub, grass and the like passes to the State. The State of Tamil Nadu shall also ensure that the witnesses are produced before the Special Court whenever they are required to attend that court. The appellant pleaded that under the agreement between him and the’ respondent he was entitled to sub-let the premises.
“Clause 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Bill, 2005 provides that an appeal against the final decision or order of Armed Forces Tribunal shall lie to the Supreme Court. Section 3 not only preserves the said powers but expressly provides that nothing contained in the Regulation shall affect or be deemed to have affected the right and prerogative of His Highness to make and pass regulations, proclamations and ordinances by virtue of his inherent authority.
This appeal challenged the validity of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estate Abolition Act, XVII Of 2007 which was enacted by Yuvaraj Karan Singh on October 17, 1950, in exercise of the powers vested in him by S. (g) The State of Tamil Nadu shall ensure that all documents and records are forthwith transferred to the Special Court on its constitution. 15 and the two sections must therefore be read together. The contention of the petitioners is that by the term ” proprietor ” is meant what that term conveys in the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, and reference is made for this purpose to various sections therein.
Both the trial Court as also the High Court in appeal found against him and dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal by special leave. There is but little doubt that in so far as the Act is concerned, it does contemplate cesser of all proprietary rights in land, grass land, scrub jungle, forest and trees, whether owned by the proprietor or through him by some other person. The object of the Act was to improve agricultural production by abolishing big landed estates and transferring land to the actual tillers of the soil.
The question thus resolves into two short ones-did the former proprietors own proprietary interest in these trees, and did they part with that proprietary interest and convey it to the petitioners ? The section itself makes it quite clear that it is subject to the provision of s. 23 of the Contract Act and enforcement of the agreement would produce the (1) A.