<?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>1974 (9) TMI 128 - High Court Punjab And Haryana</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272889</link>
    <description>A valid adoption under custom relates title back to the date of adoption, divesting the widow and vesting ownership in the adopted son; on that footing, the petitioner was a person directly affected by surplus-area proceedings and entitled to notice and hearing. Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 required an opportunity of hearing for persons concerned and was not limited to names in Form D or revenue records. The earlier authority only permitted identification of persons from available records at the initial stage and did not bar a later hearing when a genuinely interested person came forward. The Collector should therefore have entertained the review and decided the matter on merits after hearing him.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 11:11:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (9) TMI 128 - High Court Punjab And Haryana</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272889</link>
      <description>A valid adoption under custom relates title back to the date of adoption, divesting the widow and vesting ownership in the adopted son; on that footing, the petitioner was a person directly affected by surplus-area proceedings and entitled to notice and hearing. Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 required an opportunity of hearing for persons concerned and was not limited to names in Form D or revenue records. The earlier authority only permitted identification of persons from available records at the initial stage and did not bar a later hearing when a genuinely interested person came forward. The Collector should therefore have entertained the review and decided the matter on merits after hearing him.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>