https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276004 The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that respondent no. 1 was a tenant in possession of the land on the date of vesting of the Inam and acquired rights of an occupant under section 6(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act. The Court held that the State Government was not required to provide a personal hearing before disposing of the appeal but should have issued a speaking order with reasons. The appellant's arguments on the applicability of the Tenancy Act, validity of proceedings, termination of tenancy, and res judicata effect were all rejected. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:35:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276004 The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that respondent no. 1 was a tenant in possession of the land on the date of vesting of the Inam and acquired rights of an occupant under section 6(1) of the Abolition of Inams Act. The Court held that the State Government was not required to provide a personal hearing before disposing of the appeal but should have issued a speaking order with reasons. The appellant's arguments on the applicability of the Tenancy Act, validity of proceedings, termination of tenancy, and res judicata effect were all rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276004