<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1980 (5) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128319</link>
    <description>Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 is presented as an agrarian reform measure protected by Articles 31A and 31B, with its family-unit ceiling and clubbing framework supported by a rational policy to prevent evasion through transfers among close relations. The declaration mechanism preserves proportionate ownership in retained land, while prohibited transfers remain ineffective when calculating surplus area. The prescribed land-evaluation method operates within the statutory ceiling framework rather than altering it. Compensation is linked to land quality and yield, and appeal or revision may require security limited to the disputed surplus area. The constitutional and statutory challenges to these provisions did not succeed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 May 2014 16:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165190" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (5) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128319</link>
      <description>Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 is presented as an agrarian reform measure protected by Articles 31A and 31B, with its family-unit ceiling and clubbing framework supported by a rational policy to prevent evasion through transfers among close relations. The declaration mechanism preserves proportionate ownership in retained land, while prohibited transfers remain ineffective when calculating surplus area. The prescribed land-evaluation method operates within the statutory ceiling framework rather than altering it. Compensation is linked to land quality and yield, and appeal or revision may require security limited to the disputed surplus area. The constitutional and statutory challenges to these provisions did not succeed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>