<?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>2017 (8) TMI 1477 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275419</link>
    <description>Prior written permission under Section 5(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is required only for transfer of land forming part of the consolidation scheme, because such transfers may affect reallocation in consolidation proceedings. Chakout or abadi land lying outside the consolidation scheme is not liable to be reallocated and therefore its transfer does not attract that permission requirement. The review jurisdiction was also properly invoked because an apparent error on the record had not been considered earlier. As a result, no permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was needed for transfer of the suit property, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 07:07:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536738" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1477 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275419</link>
      <description>Prior written permission under Section 5(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is required only for transfer of land forming part of the consolidation scheme, because such transfers may affect reallocation in consolidation proceedings. Chakout or abadi land lying outside the consolidation scheme is not liable to be reallocated and therefore its transfer does not attract that permission requirement. The review jurisdiction was also properly invoked because an apparent error on the record had not been considered earlier. As a result, no permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was needed for transfer of the suit property, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>