https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285014 The Supreme Court upheld the Deputy Custodian General's decision that the cancellation of an allotment occurred on May 6, 1952, despite the absence of the actual order. The Court rejected the respondents' claim that the cancellation happened on September 18, 1952, after a rule change. It affirmed the Deputy Custodian General's jurisdiction and ruled that the High Court erred in interfering with factual findings. The Supreme Court emphasized the High Court's role in correcting legal errors, not factual determinations, and set aside the High Court's orders, reinstating the Deputy Custodian General's decision. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Dec 2019 11:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285014 The Supreme Court upheld the Deputy Custodian General's decision that the cancellation of an allotment occurred on May 6, 1952, despite the absence of the actual order. The Court rejected the respondents' claim that the cancellation happened on September 18, 1952, after a rule change. It affirmed the Deputy Custodian General's jurisdiction and ruled that the High Court erred in interfering with factual findings. The Supreme Court emphasized the High Court's role in correcting legal errors, not factual determinations, and set aside the High Court's orders, reinstating the Deputy Custodian General's decision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Apr 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285014