<?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>1975 (9) TMI 188 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193708</link>
    <description>Post-commencement gifts or other transfers could not be used to reduce surplus land under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, where a landowner had acquired excess land by inheritance. Section 19B required such a person to file a return and select land to retain, while the excess remained available to the State as surplus area for redistribution. Section 10A operated consistently with that scheme and did not permit voluntary alienations designed to defeat the ceiling law. The saving in section 10A(b) protected heirs only where the inherited land remained within the permissible area, and did not validate transfers made to evade surplus-area computation. The transfers were therefore ignored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Aug 2017 17:49:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (9) TMI 188 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193708</link>
      <description>Post-commencement gifts or other transfers could not be used to reduce surplus land under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, where a landowner had acquired excess land by inheritance. Section 19B required such a person to file a return and select land to retain, while the excess remained available to the State as surplus area for redistribution. Section 10A operated consistently with that scheme and did not permit voluntary alienations designed to defeat the ceiling law. The saving in section 10A(b) protected heirs only where the inherited land remained within the permissible area, and did not validate transfers made to evade surplus-area computation. The transfers were therefore ignored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193708</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>