https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183405 A remand confined to deciding whether land was irrigated or unirrigated did not reopen issues already finally determined in the earlier appellate order. Final findings on the appellant's share, exclusion of grove land, the bona fide nature of a sale, and the option regarding canal-covered land remained binding. The authorities erred by treating the entire ceiling matter as reopened and by disregarding that finality. Their orders were therefore liable to be set aside to that extent, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination of ceiling area on the basis of the earlier concluded findings, leaving only the land-categorisation issue open on evidence. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Jun 2024 11:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183405 A remand confined to deciding whether land was irrigated or unirrigated did not reopen issues already finally determined in the earlier appellate order. Final findings on the appellant's share, exclusion of grove land, the bona fide nature of a sale, and the option regarding canal-covered land remained binding. The authorities erred by treating the entire ceiling matter as reopened and by disregarding that finality. Their orders were therefore liable to be set aside to that extent, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination of ceiling area on the basis of the earlier concluded findings, leaving only the land-categorisation issue open on evidence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183405