https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275833 The Full Bench held that the rights of a claimant with a verified claim should be determined by Rule 30 as it existed at the time of the application for property transfer, not at the decision date. The abrogation of Rule 30 did not have retrospective effect on vested rights. Dev Raj, having applied under Rule 30 before its repeal, retained the right to have his claim adjudicated based on the rule pre-abrogation. The Managing Officer must transfer property under Rule 30 if conditions are met, and failure to act before abrogation does not negate the claimant's entitlement. en-us Wed, 18 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:10:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275833 The Full Bench held that the rights of a claimant with a verified claim should be determined by Rule 30 as it existed at the time of the application for property transfer, not at the decision date. The abrogation of Rule 30 did not have retrospective effect on vested rights. Dev Raj, having applied under Rule 30 before its repeal, retained the right to have his claim adjudicated based on the rule pre-abrogation. The Managing Officer must transfer property under Rule 30 if conditions are met, and failure to act before abrogation does not negate the claimant's entitlement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Oct 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275833