<?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 (10) TMI 233 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195787</link>
    <description>Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 empowers the Collector to determine whether possession is wrongful or unauthorised, and that enquiry includes deciding if a tenant voluntarily surrendered possession or was dispossessed under duress. The summary nature of the proceeding does not confine the Collector to admitted facts; he may decide the factual questions that found jurisdiction under the Act. Because those matters fall within the statutory enquiry, Section 47 bars the Civil Court from reopening them. The Collector&#039;s decision on voluntary surrender and duress was therefore within jurisdiction, and the Civil Court could not go behind it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:24:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495490" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (10) TMI 233 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195787</link>
      <description>Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 empowers the Collector to determine whether possession is wrongful or unauthorised, and that enquiry includes deciding if a tenant voluntarily surrendered possession or was dispossessed under duress. The summary nature of the proceeding does not confine the Collector to admitted facts; he may decide the factual questions that found jurisdiction under the Act. Because those matters fall within the statutory enquiry, Section 47 bars the Civil Court from reopening them. The Collector&#039;s decision on voluntary surrender and duress was therefore within jurisdiction, and the Civil Court could not go behind it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>