<?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>1998 (11) TMI 682 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198112</link>
    <description>Surplus land is treated as utilised once allotment, delivery of possession and the prescribed resettlement steps under the Rules are completed; on that basis, the inheritance saving in Section 10A(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, does not protect heirs if succession opens after such utilisation. The Court accepted the concurrent findings that the land had been allotted in 1964, possession had been delivered, and the tenant remained in uninterrupted possession, and it drew a presumption that official acts and antecedent formalities were duly performed. Non-production of some documents, including the Kabuliyat, was insufficient to negate completed utilisation or justify cancellation of the tenant&#039;s allotment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:40:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 682 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198112</link>
      <description>Surplus land is treated as utilised once allotment, delivery of possession and the prescribed resettlement steps under the Rules are completed; on that basis, the inheritance saving in Section 10A(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, does not protect heirs if succession opens after such utilisation. The Court accepted the concurrent findings that the land had been allotted in 1964, possession had been delivered, and the tenant remained in uninterrupted possession, and it drew a presumption that official acts and antecedent formalities were duly performed. Non-production of some documents, including the Kabuliyat, was insufficient to negate completed utilisation or justify cancellation of the tenant&#039;s allotment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>