<?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>1978 (9) TMI 189 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200721</link>
    <description>Proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act are not stayed merely because consolidation proceedings are pending under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Although consolidation law generally abates and bars fresh proceedings concerning declaration or adjudication of rights in land after a Section 4(2) notification, the statutory Explanation to Section 5(2) excludes ceiling proceedings from that category. That legal fiction was treated as extending to the connected Section 49 bar because both provisions form part of the same scheme. Section 10 CPC was held inapplicable, and the statutory overriding effect of the Ceiling Act prevented consolidation pendency from defeating ceiling proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:16:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (9) TMI 189 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200721</link>
      <description>Proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act are not stayed merely because consolidation proceedings are pending under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Although consolidation law generally abates and bars fresh proceedings concerning declaration or adjudication of rights in land after a Section 4(2) notification, the statutory Explanation to Section 5(2) excludes ceiling proceedings from that category. That legal fiction was treated as extending to the connected Section 49 bar because both provisions form part of the same scheme. Section 10 CPC was held inapplicable, and the statutory overriding effect of the Ceiling Act prevented consolidation pendency from defeating ceiling proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200721</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>