<?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>1967 (8) TMI 123 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192745</link>
    <description>An attaching creditor claiming an interest in compensation for acquired land is a &quot;person interested&quot; under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and may be impleaded in references concerning compensation or apportionment. The inclusive definition in Section 3(b), read with the statutory scheme, supports hearing such a claimant where the compensation dispute may affect his rights, including the ability to contest a compromise. The Supreme Court also noted that a Civil Judge&#039;s order refusing impleadment before any award is not an appealable award under Section 54; in the absence of an appeal, revision lies where jurisdiction is wrongly refused or material irregularity occurs. The revisions were therefore maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 16:20:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (8) TMI 123 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192745</link>
      <description>An attaching creditor claiming an interest in compensation for acquired land is a &quot;person interested&quot; under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and may be impleaded in references concerning compensation or apportionment. The inclusive definition in Section 3(b), read with the statutory scheme, supports hearing such a claimant where the compensation dispute may affect his rights, including the ability to contest a compromise. The Supreme Court also noted that a Civil Judge&#039;s order refusing impleadment before any award is not an appealable award under Section 54; in the absence of an appeal, revision lies where jurisdiction is wrongly refused or material irregularity occurs. The revisions were therefore maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192745</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>