<?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>1927 (3) TMI 4 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281566</link>
    <description>A revenue sale under Act XI of 1859 transferred only the Government&#039;s interest in the revenue-liable estate and did not pass title to a house on the land, because the statute did not clearly include the superstructure. The building therefore remained with its owners. On subsequent land acquisition, compensation for the house had to be apportioned between the land purchaser and the house owners on a realistic basis, taking account of the landowner&#039;s right to require removal, the demolition value if removed, the price a landowner might pay as a purchaser, and the period of lost enjoyment. The matter was remitted for fresh determination of the house owners&#039; share.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 1927 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jun 2019 17:30:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=576495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1927 (3) TMI 4 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281566</link>
      <description>A revenue sale under Act XI of 1859 transferred only the Government&#039;s interest in the revenue-liable estate and did not pass title to a house on the land, because the statute did not clearly include the superstructure. The building therefore remained with its owners. On subsequent land acquisition, compensation for the house had to be apportioned between the land purchaser and the house owners on a realistic basis, taking account of the landowner&#039;s right to require removal, the demolition value if removed, the price a landowner might pay as a purchaser, and the period of lost enjoyment. The matter was remitted for fresh determination of the house owners&#039; share.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 1927 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>