<?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>1956 (2) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169761</link>
    <description>For merged territories under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, intermediary status requires the relevant wajib-ul-arz, sanad, deed or other instrument to affirmatively establish an interest in land between the raiyat and overlord. Descriptive references to zamindar status, geographical inclusion, or unresolved settlement records do not suffice; notifications concerning Hemgir and Sarapgarh therefore could not stand. Historical records and the Ekrarnama established that Nagra was held under the Raja for a fixed yearly payment, bringing it within the statutory scheme. The discretion to issue notifications was treated as controlled by the Act&#039;s objective of abolishing intermediary interests, and phased implementation did not establish discrimination under article 14.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2015 17:43:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (2) TMI 57 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169761</link>
      <description>For merged territories under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, intermediary status requires the relevant wajib-ul-arz, sanad, deed or other instrument to affirmatively establish an interest in land between the raiyat and overlord. Descriptive references to zamindar status, geographical inclusion, or unresolved settlement records do not suffice; notifications concerning Hemgir and Sarapgarh therefore could not stand. Historical records and the Ekrarnama established that Nagra was held under the Raja for a fixed yearly payment, bringing it within the statutory scheme. The discretion to issue notifications was treated as controlled by the Act&#039;s objective of abolishing intermediary interests, and phased implementation did not establish discrimination under article 14.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169761</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>