<?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>1966 (2) TMI 93 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280398</link>
    <description>The special law governing Ghatwali lands prevailed over the general Court of Wards Act, so a lease granted for dwelling houses was held valid and binding on future possessors. Long, unquestioned enjoyment of the land supported a presumption that the official act was regularly performed and that the necessary authority and sanction had been obtained. Where the C schedule land was found not to be included in the lease, title remained with the plaintiff; as waste land not susceptible of effective enjoyment, possession was presumed to follow title. The result was that the lease challenge failed for the A schedule land, while the plaintiff succeeded in recovering the C schedule land.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2019 09:48:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569481" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (2) TMI 93 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280398</link>
      <description>The special law governing Ghatwali lands prevailed over the general Court of Wards Act, so a lease granted for dwelling houses was held valid and binding on future possessors. Long, unquestioned enjoyment of the land supported a presumption that the official act was regularly performed and that the necessary authority and sanction had been obtained. Where the C schedule land was found not to be included in the lease, title remained with the plaintiff; as waste land not susceptible of effective enjoyment, possession was presumed to follow title. The result was that the lease challenge failed for the A schedule land, while the plaintiff succeeded in recovering the C schedule land.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280398</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>