<?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>1976 (11) TMI 201 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184728</link>
    <description>Section 8 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 was treated as inapplicable because the original alienation restriction operated only until the Government dues were fully paid. Once payment had been made, the Government recognized the later settlement deed by mutation and by issuing pattas in favour of the assignee&#039;s children, leaving no subsisting condition to which Section 8 could attach. The settlement therefore created enforceable rights in the children, and the State could not defeat those rights by relying on the earlier assignment restrictions. The adverse possession argument was also treated as irrelevant in light of the Government&#039;s recognition of the settlement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:30:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (11) TMI 201 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184728</link>
      <description>Section 8 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 was treated as inapplicable because the original alienation restriction operated only until the Government dues were fully paid. Once payment had been made, the Government recognized the later settlement deed by mutation and by issuing pattas in favour of the assignee&#039;s children, leaving no subsisting condition to which Section 8 could attach. The settlement therefore created enforceable rights in the children, and the State could not defeat those rights by relying on the earlier assignment restrictions. The adverse possession argument was also treated as irrelevant in light of the Government&#039;s recognition of the settlement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>