https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279202 Section 28's finality clause did not exclude revisional power under Section 27 because both provisions operated within Chapter V, so the earlier non-evacuee order could be reopened. Section 7-A did not bar the proceedings where they were treated as pending on the relevant date, and the notice under Section 27 was not defeated by any limitation period because the Act prescribed none for that revisional power. The notice was also treated as valid within the custodial hierarchy, and certiorari was unavailable because the authorities acted within jurisdiction, including to examine allegations of fraud. en-us Tue, 27 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Mar 2019 14:24:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279202 Section 28's finality clause did not exclude revisional power under Section 27 because both provisions operated within Chapter V, so the earlier non-evacuee order could be reopened. Section 7-A did not bar the proceedings where they were treated as pending on the relevant date, and the notice under Section 27 was not defeated by any limitation period because the Act prescribed none for that revisional power. The notice was also treated as valid within the custodial hierarchy, and certiorari was unavailable because the authorities acted within jurisdiction, including to examine allegations of fraud. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279202