https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182852 Cis-Sutlej jagirs were treated as jagirs within section 2(1)(a) because the former rulers had been reduced to ordinary subjects and the continued payment of land revenue was referable to an implied grant arising from the historical settlement arrangement. The Court rejected the absence of an express grant as fatal and held the jagirs liable to resumption under the Act. It further held that the Punjab Legislature had competence to retrospectively define "State Government" so as to include predecessor Governments, since the subject fell within land and land revenue and the validating amendment was intra vires. The challenge to the resumption proceedings therefore failed. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 May 2016 12:03:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182852 Cis-Sutlej jagirs were treated as jagirs within section 2(1)(a) because the former rulers had been reduced to ordinary subjects and the continued payment of land revenue was referable to an implied grant arising from the historical settlement arrangement. The Court rejected the absence of an express grant as fatal and held the jagirs liable to resumption under the Act. It further held that the Punjab Legislature had competence to retrospectively define "State Government" so as to include predecessor Governments, since the subject fell within land and land revenue and the validating amendment was intra vires. The challenge to the resumption proceedings therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Feb 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182852