<?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>1965 (2) TMI 118 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187792</link>
    <description>After abolition of jagirs under the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, jagirdars acquired only such rights as were expressly saved, and section 5(1)(b) gave them occupant rights in land alone. Those rights, read with the Bombay Land Revenue Code, did not automatically include ownership or removal rights over trees standing on forest lands. Section 40 of the Code showed that, until survey settlement, Government rights in trees were not deemed conceded to the occupant, and no implied grant could arise where the villages were unsurveyed and unsettled. Reserved trees were separately vested in the State under section 9, and section 10 confirmed that any preserved pre-existing rights had to be expressly stated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2016 14:15:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (2) TMI 118 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187792</link>
      <description>After abolition of jagirs under the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, jagirdars acquired only such rights as were expressly saved, and section 5(1)(b) gave them occupant rights in land alone. Those rights, read with the Bombay Land Revenue Code, did not automatically include ownership or removal rights over trees standing on forest lands. Section 40 of the Code showed that, until survey settlement, Government rights in trees were not deemed conceded to the occupant, and no implied grant could arise where the villages were unsurveyed and unsettled. Reserved trees were separately vested in the State under section 9, and section 10 confirmed that any preserved pre-existing rights had to be expressly stated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>