https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128121 Civil Court jurisdiction was upheld on the preliminary question whether the village was an inam village, because the Settlement Officer's exclusive authority under the Abolition Act extended only to the statutory enquiry and not to the jurisdictional fact on which that enquiry depended. The Court also held that the 1957 amendments and the 1960 amendment operated prospectively and did not revive an earlier Settlement Officer's order or unsettle final civil decrees, as there was no clear legislative intent to give them retrospective effect. The matter was therefore remitted for decision on the remaining issues in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 11 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2020 13:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128121 Civil Court jurisdiction was upheld on the preliminary question whether the village was an inam village, because the Settlement Officer's exclusive authority under the Abolition Act extended only to the statutory enquiry and not to the jurisdictional fact on which that enquiry depended. The Court also held that the 1957 amendments and the 1960 amendment operated prospectively and did not revive an earlier Settlement Officer's order or unsettle final civil decrees, as there was no clear legislative intent to give them retrospective effect. The matter was therefore remitted for decision on the remaining issues in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128121