To this sub-clause there is a proviso in cl. (5) which states that nothing in clause (f) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any Jaw imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred. either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. The main clause of the article recognises the institution of private property with all the concomitants of that institution, namely, the acquisition, holding and disposal of property. The proviso recognises, in the public interest, restrictions on the right in existing law or hereafter to be imposed by law. The institution of property thus recognised leaves freedom to acquire any kind of property excepi the one in relation to which there is a restrictive law. Thus it is that certain kinds of properties such as Narcotic drugs, explosives, property in excess of ceiling placed by Jaw etc. cannot be acquired or held. This restriction curtails the general right and the curtailment must justify itself as a law in the public interest. Next we have Arts. 31, 3l(A) and 3l(B). They occur in a section of Part lll entitled "Rights to Property". The first of these three articles deals with compulsory acquisition of property. The second and third deal with saving of Jaws providing for acquisition of Estates etc. and validation of certain Acts and Regulations declared void by Courts. Two fundamental concepts in Art. 31 are (a) that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law, and (b) no property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned save for a public purpose and save by authmity of law which itself fixes the amount of compensation or specifies the principles on which compensation is to be determined and given and the manner thereof. Other provisions either restrict or amplify the operation of these two fundamental concepts. In Smt. Uiiam Bai's(') case the question was whether assessment of Saks Tax under a valid Act was open to challenge under Art. Ji on the ground of misconstruction of the Act or a notification under it. It was held that the answer was in the negative. That case has given some trouble in view of the different opinion expressed in it. It is therefore necessary to state simply the propositio,ns which are settled by this Cou1t. The ruling recognizes the existence of a right to move this Court under .Art. 32 where the acion is taken under an ultra vires statute. or where, although the statute is intra l'ires, the action is without jurisdiction or the principles of natural justice are violated. Errors of law or fact cominitted in the exercise of jurisdiction founded on a valid law do not entitle a person to have them corrected by way of petiti1s
