https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128319 Agrarian reform ceiling legislation was upheld as protected by Articles 31A and 31B, so the Article 14 challenge based on an alleged artificial family definition and ceiling scheme failed. Section 9 and Section 8(3) were also sustained because the declaration mechanism and exclusion of transfers made in breach of the Act were valid anti-evasion measures, not discrimination against the wife. Rule 5(2) was held to stay within Section 4, as it prescribed only the method of valuation and did not enlarge the ceiling. Compensation under Section 16 was not illusory, and the deposit or bank guarantee condition for appeal or revision under Section 18(7) was a permissible restriction. en-us Fri, 09 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 May 2014 16:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128319 Agrarian reform ceiling legislation was upheld as protected by Articles 31A and 31B, so the Article 14 challenge based on an alleged artificial family definition and ceiling scheme failed. Section 9 and Section 8(3) were also sustained because the declaration mechanism and exclusion of transfers made in breach of the Act were valid anti-evasion measures, not discrimination against the wife. Rule 5(2) was held to stay within Section 4, as it prescribed only the method of valuation and did not enlarge the ceiling. Compensation under Section 16 was not illusory, and the deposit or bank guarantee condition for appeal or revision under Section 18(7) was a permissible restriction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128319