Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court Affirms Kerala Forests Act Constitutionality</h1> <h3>STATE OF KERALA Versus GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG. (WVG.) CO. LTD.</h3> STATE OF KERALA Versus GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG. (WVG.) CO. LTD. - 1973 AIR 2734, 1974 (1) SCR 671, 1973 (2) SCC 713 Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971.2. Whether the Act is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution.3. Whether forest lands can be considered agricultural lands.4. Whether the Act constitutes a genuine scheme of agrarian reform.5. The validity of acquisition without compensation.6. Allegations of colorable legislation and equitable estoppel.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971:The primary issue was whether the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, is constitutional. The Act was challenged on the grounds that it violated Articles 14, 19(1)(f)(g), and 31 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the Act was protected under Article 31A(1), which provides immunity to certain laws from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights.2. Whether the Act is protected by Article 31A of the Constitution:The Court examined if the Act fulfilled the conditions under Article 31A(1)(a), which protects laws related to agrarian reform. The State argued that private forests held in janmam right qualify as an 'estate' under sub-clause (i) of Article 31A(2)(a). The Court agreed, stating that janmam rights are hereditary proprietorships in land and fall within the definition of an estate. Therefore, the Act was protected under Article 31A(1) as a measure of agrarian reform.3. Whether forest lands can be considered agricultural lands:The Court considered whether private forests in Kerala could be classified as agricultural lands. The preamble of the Act described these forests as agricultural lands intended to increase agricultural production and promote the welfare of the agricultural population. The Court found that forest lands in Kerala have been historically used for various agricultural purposes and can be prudently and profitably exploited for agriculture. Thus, the designation of these lands as agricultural lands was upheld.4. Whether the Act constitutes a genuine scheme of agrarian reform:The Court analyzed the scheme of agrarian reform outlined in the Act. Section 10 of the Act provided for the assignment of private forests to agriculturists and agricultural laborers for cultivation, aiming to increase agricultural production and promote the welfare of the rural population. The Court found that the Act's provisions were consistent with agrarian reform objectives, similar to those upheld in previous cases like the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act. The High Court's view that the scheme was illusory was rejected, and the Act was deemed a genuine measure of agrarian reform.5. The validity of acquisition without compensation:The Act did not provide for compensation for the acquisition of private forests. The Court noted that Article 31A protects laws related to agrarian reform from being challenged on the grounds of non-payment of compensation. While acknowledging the harshness of this provision, the Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to implement agrarian reform, which justified the lack of compensation.6. Allegations of colorable legislation and equitable estoppel:The Court addressed the argument that the Act was a piece of colorable legislation intended to expropriate forest lands without compensation. It was argued that a previous bill had provided for compensation, but the current Act did not. The Court dismissed this argument, stating that the legislature's competence to pass the Act and its constitutional validity were the primary considerations. The plea of equitable estoppel raised by a company based on an agreement with the government was also rejected, as legislative powers cannot be surrendered through agreements.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and dismissed the writ petitions, declaring the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, constitutionally valid. The Act was found to be a genuine measure of agrarian reform protected under Article 31A, and the classification of forest lands as agricultural lands was upheld. The lack of compensation was justified within the framework of agrarian reform objectives.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found