<?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>1971 (2) TMI 123 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199976</link>
    <description>The West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was held applicable to Chandernagore after merger and assimilation into West Bengal, because the merger legislation extended existing West Bengal laws and any earlier inconsistent privilege or immunity ceased. The requisition orders were also upheld: the Collector&#039;s notification was read by reference to the district as it existed when power was exercised, so land in Chandernagore fell within territorial reach, and the later special appointment of the Additional District Magistrate validly conferred Collector-like functions. The constitutional challenge under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(5) failed, and the legal objections to the requisition and the Act were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 11:33:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (2) TMI 123 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199976</link>
      <description>The West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 was held applicable to Chandernagore after merger and assimilation into West Bengal, because the merger legislation extended existing West Bengal laws and any earlier inconsistent privilege or immunity ceased. The requisition orders were also upheld: the Collector&#039;s notification was read by reference to the district as it existed when power was exercised, so land in Chandernagore fell within territorial reach, and the later special appointment of the Additional District Magistrate validly conferred Collector-like functions. The constitutional challenge under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(5) failed, and the legal objections to the requisition and the Act were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199976</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>