<?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>1995 (5) TMI 279 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190225</link>
    <description>A Government grant for cultivation may be treated as a lease of agricultural land where its terms include annual rent, personal cultivation, transfer restraints, liability for arrears as land revenue, and government termination rights. On that footing, the land falls within the ceiling law because land held as a Government lessee is covered and the Government Grants Act preserves land-reform and ceiling legislation. A retrospective deletion of the exemption clause also meant that no separate fresh notice was needed after the amendment became operative. The provision dealing with Government leases under the land reforms law did not apply on these facts, and the surplus-land orders were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 18:31:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (5) TMI 279 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190225</link>
      <description>A Government grant for cultivation may be treated as a lease of agricultural land where its terms include annual rent, personal cultivation, transfer restraints, liability for arrears as land revenue, and government termination rights. On that footing, the land falls within the ceiling law because land held as a Government lessee is covered and the Government Grants Act preserves land-reform and ceiling legislation. A retrospective deletion of the exemption clause also meant that no separate fresh notice was needed after the amendment became operative. The provision dealing with Government leases under the land reforms law did not apply on these facts, and the surplus-land orders were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>