<?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>1969 (2) TMI 185 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273544</link>
    <description>The amended Section 157(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was read retrospectively by necessary implication because the accompanying amendment to Section 21(h) was expressly retrospective and part of the same legislative scheme; the landlord could therefore rely on the amended disability clauses. The Compensation Officer&#039;s order dated 25 October 1956 did not attain finality on the occupants&#039; adhivasi status, because the statutory procedure required an issue to be referred to the competent court and that procedure was not followed. An order made without compliance with the mandatory reference mechanism could not bar reconsideration in later proceedings. The appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2022 18:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (2) TMI 185 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273544</link>
      <description>The amended Section 157(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was read retrospectively by necessary implication because the accompanying amendment to Section 21(h) was expressly retrospective and part of the same legislative scheme; the landlord could therefore rely on the amended disability clauses. The Compensation Officer&#039;s order dated 25 October 1956 did not attain finality on the occupants&#039; adhivasi status, because the statutory procedure required an issue to be referred to the competent court and that procedure was not followed. An order made without compliance with the mandatory reference mechanism could not bar reconsideration in later proceedings. The appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273544</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>