<?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>1956 (4) TMI 69 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287538</link>
    <description>A Bill introduced with gubernatorial sanction and still pending in the legislative process at the Constitution&#039;s commencement was treated as validly continuing under the transitional provisions, so the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act and its amendments were within legislative competence. Once the Act was validly enacted, the section 3(1) notification could vest estates in the State free from encumbrances; its application to one plaintiff&#039;s properties turned on an unresolved factual question whether they constituted an &#039;estate&#039;, while it was effective against the other plaintiff&#039;s estate. The Act, being a law for acquisition of an estate or rights therein, was protected by article 31-A and could not be struck down under articles 31(2) or 14.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2020 18:51:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=610546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (4) TMI 69 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287538</link>
      <description>A Bill introduced with gubernatorial sanction and still pending in the legislative process at the Constitution&#039;s commencement was treated as validly continuing under the transitional provisions, so the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act and its amendments were within legislative competence. Once the Act was validly enacted, the section 3(1) notification could vest estates in the State free from encumbrances; its application to one plaintiff&#039;s properties turned on an unresolved factual question whether they constituted an &#039;estate&#039;, while it was effective against the other plaintiff&#039;s estate. The Act, being a law for acquisition of an estate or rights therein, was protected by article 31-A and could not be struck down under articles 31(2) or 14.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287538</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>