<?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>2004 (9) TMI 687 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279845</link>
    <description>Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act gives a protective power to restore land to Scheduled Tribe members where transfer was unlawful or fraudulent, but the phrase &quot;at any time&quot; does not permit indefinite or arbitrary use. The power is not governed by the Limitation Act, yet it must be exercised within a reasonable time, especially where third-party rights have arisen. The Court also noted that section 46, which came into force in 1948, could not be applied retrospectively to a 1938 surrender and settlement. The restoration order was therefore unsustainable because the power was invoked after an unreasonable delay and against a transaction beyond the provision&#039;s temporal reach.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2019 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=566086" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 687 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279845</link>
      <description>Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act gives a protective power to restore land to Scheduled Tribe members where transfer was unlawful or fraudulent, but the phrase &quot;at any time&quot; does not permit indefinite or arbitrary use. The power is not governed by the Limitation Act, yet it must be exercised within a reasonable time, especially where third-party rights have arisen. The Court also noted that section 46, which came into force in 1948, could not be applied retrospectively to a 1938 surrender and settlement. The restoration order was therefore unsustainable because the power was invoked after an unreasonable delay and against a transaction beyond the provision&#039;s temporal reach.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>