<?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>1962 (11) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168847</link>
    <description>A registered lease gave the petitioner a present interest sufficient to invoke constitutional jurisdiction, even though disputed title and possession questions were left for another forum. The U.P. Land Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) Act, 1952 was held unconstitutional because, as a post-Constitution law, it deprived transferees of property rights without compensation and could not be revived by the doctrine of eclipse. By contrast, the Indian Forest (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1956 was upheld as an ancillary, interim measure within the forest-reservation scheme, and the impugned forest notifications were sustained because withdrawal or modification required Gazette publication, which had not been duly made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:42:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (11) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168847</link>
      <description>A registered lease gave the petitioner a present interest sufficient to invoke constitutional jurisdiction, even though disputed title and possession questions were left for another forum. The U.P. Land Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) Act, 1952 was held unconstitutional because, as a post-Constitution law, it deprived transferees of property rights without compensation and could not be revived by the doctrine of eclipse. By contrast, the Indian Forest (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1956 was upheld as an ancillary, interim measure within the forest-reservation scheme, and the impugned forest notifications were sustained because withdrawal or modification required Gazette publication, which had not been duly made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168847</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>