<?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>1942 (1) TMI 9 - Privy Council</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178701</link>
    <description>A provincial tenancy law regulating landlord-tenant relations and rent collection was treated as within provincial legislative competence, not as a contract matter requiring treatment under the Concurrent List. The text rejects the argument that the Permanent Settlement created an immutable zamindar right to a fixed share of produce, and states that Governor&#039;s assent cured any prior sanction defect. It also treats a mango orchard held by an occupancy raiyat as agricultural land, noting that tree planting and maintenance remained cultivation-related. On that basis, the challenged Bihar tenancy provisions were described as intra vires and valid, with repugnancy not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 1942 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:43:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1942 (1) TMI 9 - Privy Council</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178701</link>
      <description>A provincial tenancy law regulating landlord-tenant relations and rent collection was treated as within provincial legislative competence, not as a contract matter requiring treatment under the Concurrent List. The text rejects the argument that the Permanent Settlement created an immutable zamindar right to a fixed share of produce, and states that Governor&#039;s assent cured any prior sanction defect. It also treats a mango orchard held by an occupancy raiyat as agricultural land, noting that tree planting and maintenance remained cultivation-related. On that basis, the challenged Bihar tenancy provisions were described as intra vires and valid, with repugnancy not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 1942 00:00:00 +0630</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>