<?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>1961 (8) TMI 58 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276665</link>
    <description>Rights directly attached to an estate or its land revenue are extinguished on vesting under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, but a payment merely quantified by reference to revenue is not, for that reason alone, a right in land or land revenue. The remission relating to the 12 mahals was a 25% remission of assessed land revenue and therefore ceased when the estates vested in the State; that claim failed. By contrast, the annual allowance for the 166 mahals was a settlement payment for extinction of a disputed jagir claim, not a proprietary right in land or revenue, so section 6(b) did not apply; that claim succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 14:54:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542004" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (8) TMI 58 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276665</link>
      <description>Rights directly attached to an estate or its land revenue are extinguished on vesting under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, but a payment merely quantified by reference to revenue is not, for that reason alone, a right in land or land revenue. The remission relating to the 12 mahals was a 25% remission of assessed land revenue and therefore ceased when the estates vested in the State; that claim failed. By contrast, the annual allowance for the 166 mahals was a settlement payment for extinction of a disputed jagir claim, not a proprietary right in land or revenue, so section 6(b) did not apply; that claim succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>