<?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>1993 (7) TMI 342 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182740</link>
    <description>Section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 confers a restorative right only where a tenant was in possession on the appointed date and was dispossessed before 1 April 1957 otherwise than under Section 29. The provision is described as beneficial and capable of liberal construction to advance the object of conferring ownership on cultivating tenants, but the requirement of prior dispossession remains distinct from voluntary surrender or abandonment of possession. On the facts discussed, voluntary relinquishment of possession did not satisfy the statutory condition for restoration or deemed purchase. The dissent emphasised that the High Court should not have disturbed the Revenue Tribunal&#039;s factual findings in Article 227 proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 May 2016 18:13:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (7) TMI 342 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182740</link>
      <description>Section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 confers a restorative right only where a tenant was in possession on the appointed date and was dispossessed before 1 April 1957 otherwise than under Section 29. The provision is described as beneficial and capable of liberal construction to advance the object of conferring ownership on cultivating tenants, but the requirement of prior dispossession remains distinct from voluntary surrender or abandonment of possession. On the facts discussed, voluntary relinquishment of possession did not satisfy the statutory condition for restoration or deemed purchase. The dissent emphasised that the High Court should not have disturbed the Revenue Tribunal&#039;s factual findings in Article 227 proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>