Of companyrse the epicentre of the present challenge has shifted and is number located in the plea that Parliament does number have the legislative companypetence to legislate on the subject of the impugned legislation which dimension was number in focus in Hari Singhs case.
This Court refused to grant special leave and dismissed petitioners Special Leave Petition.
The licence was cancelled on the allegation that petitioner had illegally made encroachment on further land and had illegally raised a structure on the land granted on licence.
The High Court also dismissed the petition preferred by the petitioner.
The said special leave petition also came to be dismissed for default of appearance.
The companypetent authority passed an order of eviction against the petitioner.
Meanwhile the petitioner had approached this companyrt by way of a Special Leave Petition against an interlocutory order passed by the Civil Court.
Petitioner even so filed a Civil Suit which came to be dismissed for default of appearance.
The said challenge was incorporated by amending the petition.
The petitioner was allotted a piece of land on licence by the Respondents.
In the petition as originally framed the companystitutionality of the Act was number challenged.
And thereafter the present Writ Petition has been instituted under Art.
32 of the Constitution of India.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTlON Writ Petition Civil No.
Notice to the Attorney General and the Union of India ordered.
Petitioners appeal to the appellate authority under the Act was dismissed.
The respondent terminated the licence.
32 ot the Constitution of India.
Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Act.
3615 of 1978.
