https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190168 Surplus urban land that had vested in the State under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 could not be restored to the original owner once possession had been taken and the land had been assigned to another public use; vesting under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) was treated as absolute, and repeal of the Act did not revive the owner's claim. The Court also held that revisional power under Section 34, though not subject to an express limitation period, must be exercised within a reasonable time. A revision filed nearly two decades later was therefore too belated to unsettle concluded proceedings. en-us Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jun 2025 17:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190168 Surplus urban land that had vested in the State under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 could not be restored to the original owner once possession had been taken and the land had been assigned to another public use; vesting under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) was treated as absolute, and repeal of the Act did not revive the owner's claim. The Court also held that revisional power under Section 34, though not subject to an express limitation period, must be exercised within a reasonable time. A revision filed nearly two decades later was therefore too belated to unsettle concluded proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190168