<?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>1968 (5) TMI 59 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273251</link>
    <description>The U. P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959 was examined for Article 14 compliance on the ground that it enabled selective use against some unauthorized occupants while ordinary civil or revenue remedies remained available against others. The Court treated the Act as a special and additional enforcement mechanism, not a complete substitute for ordinary remedies, and noted that the Public Authority&#039;s threshold opinion under Section 3 was discretionary and not open to challenge under the Act. It further found the procedure more onerous because it imposed no limitation period, gave finality to orders and opinions, and allowed objections on title to be treated as frivolous. The Act was declared ultra vires Article 14 and proceedings under it were invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:21:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (5) TMI 59 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273251</link>
      <description>The U. P. Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959 was examined for Article 14 compliance on the ground that it enabled selective use against some unauthorized occupants while ordinary civil or revenue remedies remained available against others. The Court treated the Act as a special and additional enforcement mechanism, not a complete substitute for ordinary remedies, and noted that the Public Authority&#039;s threshold opinion under Section 3 was discretionary and not open to challenge under the Act. It further found the procedure more onerous because it imposed no limitation period, gave finality to orders and opinions, and allowed objections on title to be treated as frivolous. The Act was declared ultra vires Article 14 and proceedings under it were invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>