https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284950 After the amendment to the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the State could hold a Mela on the proprietor's bakasht lands, but not where a person had acquired a genuine raiyati right before vesting. The decisive question was whether the 1944 settlement in favour of the respondent was a real and bona fide raiyati settlement or a sham transaction. Applying the principle that the apparent state of affairs should be accepted as real unless the contrary is shown, the materials did not justify treating the settlement as unreal on the record before the Court. The respondent was therefore treated as having genuinely become a raiyat before vesting, and the High Court's writ was upheld. en-us Tue, 25 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Dec 2019 11:18:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284950 After the amendment to the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the State could hold a Mela on the proprietor's bakasht lands, but not where a person had acquired a genuine raiyati right before vesting. The decisive question was whether the 1944 settlement in favour of the respondent was a real and bona fide raiyati settlement or a sham transaction. Applying the principle that the apparent state of affairs should be accepted as real unless the contrary is shown, the materials did not justify treating the settlement as unreal on the record before the Court. The respondent was therefore treated as having genuinely become a raiyat before vesting, and the High Court's writ was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284950