<?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>2010 (1) TMI 1221 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186360</link>
    <description>The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 is treated as a self-contained code enabling the Special Tribunal and Special Court to examine ownership, lawful possession and a plea of adverse possession within land-grabbing proceedings. The text states that such jurisdiction includes deciding whether occupants have perfected title by adverse possession, rather than confining the issue to ordinary civil courts. It further explains that adverse possession requires open, continuous and hostile possession with animus against the true owner for the statutory period; mere long occupation, cultivation or revenue payments are insufficient. Concurrent findings rejecting hostile possession therefore support eviction of unlawful occupants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:54:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1221 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186360</link>
      <description>The Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 is treated as a self-contained code enabling the Special Tribunal and Special Court to examine ownership, lawful possession and a plea of adverse possession within land-grabbing proceedings. The text states that such jurisdiction includes deciding whether occupants have perfected title by adverse possession, rather than confining the issue to ordinary civil courts. It further explains that adverse possession requires open, continuous and hostile possession with animus against the true owner for the statutory period; mere long occupation, cultivation or revenue payments are insufficient. Concurrent findings rejecting hostile possession therefore support eviction of unlawful occupants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>