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 rules on retrospective appointment, land compensation, scheme validity under Article 31A(1)</h1> <h3>Ajit Singh Versus State of Punjab</h3> Ajit Singh Versus State of Punjab - 1994 (4) SCC 67, 1994 (2) JT 700 Issues Involved:1. Retrospective appointment of a Consolidation Officer2. Compensation for land reserved in the scheme under the second proviso to Article 31A(1)3. Validity of the scheme prepared by an unappointed officer4. Interpretation of 'acquisition' under Article 31A(1)Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Retrospective Appointment of a Consolidation Officer:The appellant argued that Gurkirpal Singh, who commenced consolidation proceedings and prepared the draft scheme, did not have legal authority to do so as he was not appointed as a Consolidation Officer at that time. The High Court acknowledged that there could be no retrospective appointment of a Consolidation Officer but dismissed the objection due to laches, as the appellant delayed in raising the issue. The Supreme Court agreed that a person must be appointed as a Consolidation Officer before exercising any functions and that retrospective appointment by the government cannot clothe him with authority retrospectively. However, the appeal could not succeed on these grounds due to the appellant's delay in raising the objection and lack of manifest injustice.2. Compensation for Land Reserved in the Scheme:The appellant contended that compensation must be paid for land reserved for various purposes under the scheme, as required by the second proviso to Article 31A(1). The High Court held that the second proviso was prospective and did not apply to the scheme, as the rights became vested once the scheme was sanctioned. The Supreme Court examined whether the reservation of land for common purposes amounted to 'acquisition' within the meaning of the second proviso. It concluded that the scheme did not amount to acquisition by the State, as the title remained with the proprietary body, and the land was used for the common needs and benefits of the estate, managed by the Panchayat on behalf of the proprietors. Therefore, there was no acquisition within the second proviso, and the appellant was not entitled to compensation.3. Validity of the Scheme Prepared by an Unappointed Officer:The appellant argued that the scheme prepared by Gurkirpal Singh was invalid as he was not legally appointed at the time. The High Court rejected this contention on the grounds of laches and on merits, noting that Harcharan Singh, who had the power to appoint a Consolidation Officer, must have appointed Gurkirpal Singh before he began acting in that capacity. The Supreme Court agreed that there was a presumption of proper appointment under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the objection could not be entertained due to the delay in raising it.4. Interpretation of 'Acquisition' under Article 31A(1):The Supreme Court analyzed the meaning of 'acquisition' in the context of Article 31A(1) and the second proviso. It noted that Article 31A(1)(a) mentions four categories: acquisition by the State of an estate, acquisition of rights in an estate, extinguishment of rights, and modification of rights. The Court distinguished between acquisition, where the State is the beneficiary, and modification or extinguishment, where the State is not the beneficiary. It concluded that the reservation of land for common purposes under the scheme did not amount to acquisition by the State, as the title remained with the proprietary body, and the land was used for the common benefit of the estate. Therefore, the second proviso to Article 31A(1) did not apply, and the appellant was not entitled to compensation.Separate Judgment by Hidayatullah, J.:Hidayatullah, J. concurred with the majority on the issue of retrospective appointment, noting that the objection could not be entertained due to laches. On the issue of compensation, he provided a detailed analysis of the relevant constitutional provisions and the legislative intent behind Articles 31 and 31A. He concluded that the reservation of land for common purposes under the scheme did not amount to acquisition by the State within the meaning of the second proviso to Article 31A(1), and the appellant was not entitled to compensation.Order:In accordance with the opinion of the majority, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found