 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 69 Chapter 55 Cession of Territory Section 113 55.1. Introductory.- Under section 113, a notification in the official Gazette that any portion of British territory has, before the commencement of Part III of the Government of India Act, 1935 (26 Geo. 5, Ch. 2), been ceded to any Native State, Prince or Ruler, shall be conclusive proof that a valid cession of such territory took place at the date mentioned in such notification. 55.2. Privy Council decision.- The section, as originally enacted, provided that a notification in the Official Gazette that any portion of British territory has been conceded to any Native State, Prince or Ruler shall be conclusive proof that a valid cession of such territory took place at the date mentioned in such notification. The section was held to be ultra vires by the Privy Council.1 As the Governor-General in Council was precluded, by statute,2 from legislating directly as to the sovereignty or dominion of the Crown over any part of its territories in India, or as to the allegiance of British subjects, the Privy Council held that the Governor-General in Council could not, by a legislative Act3purporting to make a notification conclusive evidence of a cession of territory, exclude inquiry as to the nature and lawfulness of that cession. 1. Damodar Gordhan v. Deoram Karji, ILA 1 Born 367 (PC). 2. Section 22, Statutes 24 and 25 Vict., C. 67. 3. Section 113. 55.3. Recommendation to delete the section.- After this decision, the section became a dead letter. In any case, there is no place for the section in the present constitutional scheme. The section is obsolete.1 We, therefore, recommend that the section should be deleted. 1. Maganbhai v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783 (794).    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back