https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184642 A review petition filed after a long delay was rejected because the allegation of fraud was not established and the earlier factual findings could not be reopened in review. The Tahsildar's inspection and the supporting records had already been accepted as showing plantation lands or lands interspersed with plantation cultivation, and there was no material to show fraud by the declarants or the Tahsildar. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act was also noted to treat plantation land as land, while Section 104 excludes plantation lands from the operation of Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80, so the declaration under Section 66(4) was not shown to be improper merely because the lands were held through a firm. The review therefore failed. en-us Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:58:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184642 A review petition filed after a long delay was rejected because the allegation of fraud was not established and the earlier factual findings could not be reopened in review. The Tahsildar's inspection and the supporting records had already been accepted as showing plantation lands or lands interspersed with plantation cultivation, and there was no material to show fraud by the declarants or the Tahsildar. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act was also noted to treat plantation land as land, while Section 104 excludes plantation lands from the operation of Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80, so the declaration under Section 66(4) was not shown to be improper merely because the lands were held through a firm. The review therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184642