https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158848 Where State property is in dispute, the State must be impleaded in its own name; a writ petition or appeal filed only in the name of a Government officer was not maintainable. On title, settled and long possession supported by revenue records, setwar entries and official correspondence raised a rebuttable presumption of ownership under Section 110 of the Evidence Act. The State produced no evidence of vesting on abolition of jagirs, and the forest notification was held to create a protected forest area without extinguishing private ownership. The pattedars' title was therefore upheld and the challenge failed. en-us Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Feb 2015 15:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158848 Where State property is in dispute, the State must be impleaded in its own name; a writ petition or appeal filed only in the name of a Government officer was not maintainable. On title, settled and long possession supported by revenue records, setwar entries and official correspondence raised a rebuttable presumption of ownership under Section 110 of the Evidence Act. The State produced no evidence of vesting on abolition of jagirs, and the forest notification was held to create a protected forest area without extinguishing private ownership. The pattedars' title was therefore upheld and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158848