<?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>1994 (4) TMI 387 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171412</link>
    <description>Tenants in actual possession under a Gram Panchayat lease are interested parties for revision under the proviso to Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The proviso requires notice and an opportunity of hearing before any variation or reversal of an order, and the expression &quot;interested parties&quot; is to be read broadly to include persons whose possession or legal rights may be affected by the revisional decision. Because the tenants&#039; tenancy and possession could be materially impacted by the dispute between rival claimants and the Panchayat, failure to serve notice made the revisional order unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:14:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 387 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171412</link>
      <description>Tenants in actual possession under a Gram Panchayat lease are interested parties for revision under the proviso to Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The proviso requires notice and an opportunity of hearing before any variation or reversal of an order, and the expression &quot;interested parties&quot; is to be read broadly to include persons whose possession or legal rights may be affected by the revisional decision. Because the tenants&#039; tenancy and possession could be materially impacted by the dispute between rival claimants and the Panchayat, failure to serve notice made the revisional order unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>