https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190939 The Supreme Court held that a technical objection to maintainability did not bar a constitutional challenge where the petitioners directly questioned a Collector's power to dispossess them without lawful process. On the merits, the Collector could not order eviction under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 unless it was first established that the persons proceeded against were lessees under the Act and that the land was in fact governed by it. Because no patta or lease was produced and the applicability of the Act was itself disputed, the foundational jurisdictional facts had to be determined before any dispossession could follow. The dispossession orders were set aside. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:39:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190939 The Supreme Court held that a technical objection to maintainability did not bar a constitutional challenge where the petitioners directly questioned a Collector's power to dispossess them without lawful process. On the merits, the Collector could not order eviction under the East Punjab Utilization of Lands Act, 1949 unless it was first established that the persons proceeded against were lessees under the Act and that the land was in fact governed by it. Because no patta or lease was produced and the applicability of the Act was itself disputed, the foundational jurisdictional facts had to be determined before any dispossession could follow. The dispossession orders were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190939