<?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>2000 (9) TMI 1072 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196031</link>
    <description>Section 6(1)(b) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 allows retention of land comprised in or appertaining to buildings and structures without any express requirement of khas possession, so that condition cannot be read into the provision. The plain statutory language governs, and the intermediary&#039;s right of retention was available on that basis. In writ proceedings, filing Form B amounted to acceptance of intermediary status, and the court was not justified in reopening questions of whether the predecessor was an intermediary or whether the land had vested in the State. The challenge to the retention claim therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:22:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 1072 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196031</link>
      <description>Section 6(1)(b) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 allows retention of land comprised in or appertaining to buildings and structures without any express requirement of khas possession, so that condition cannot be read into the provision. The plain statutory language governs, and the intermediary&#039;s right of retention was available on that basis. In writ proceedings, filing Form B amounted to acceptance of intermediary status, and the court was not justified in reopening questions of whether the predecessor was an intermediary or whether the land had vested in the State. The challenge to the retention claim therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>