https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185111 A statutory limitation period for filing occupancy-rights applications under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was treated as mandatory once the amendment fixed a six-month period and removed any power to condone delay. Equitable hardship or ambiguity could not extend the time, so an application filed after the prescribed deadline was barred. The Court also held that limitation under Section 48-A did not wait for final disposal of re-grant proceedings under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, because resumption under that Act did not amount to absolute vesting and the Land Reforms Act machinery was sufficient to enable timely filing. The belated application could not be entertained. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jul 2016 18:45:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185111 A statutory limitation period for filing occupancy-rights applications under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was treated as mandatory once the amendment fixed a six-month period and removed any power to condone delay. Equitable hardship or ambiguity could not extend the time, so an application filed after the prescribed deadline was barred. The Court also held that limitation under Section 48-A did not wait for final disposal of re-grant proceedings under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, because resumption under that Act did not amount to absolute vesting and the Land Reforms Act machinery was sufficient to enable timely filing. The belated application could not be entertained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185111