https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289026 An amended management provision under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was held outside the protection of Articles 31-A and 31-B because the enlargement of the power over non-landholders was not saved by the Ninth Schedule and did not amount to a protected acquisition or extinguishment of property rights. The Court further held that Article 31-A(1)(b) requires management to be taken over for a real limited period, but the statutory scheme supplied no definite time limit. The declaration assuming management of the lands also failed for want of objective standards: the Act treated grass-growing as agriculture, yet the impugned action rested on subjective satisfaction about efficiency and could not justify deprivation of use and enjoyment of the land. en-us Fri, 19 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:17:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289026 An amended management provision under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was held outside the protection of Articles 31-A and 31-B because the enlargement of the power over non-landholders was not saved by the Ninth Schedule and did not amount to a protected acquisition or extinguishment of property rights. The Court further held that Article 31-A(1)(b) requires management to be taken over for a real limited period, but the statutory scheme supplied no definite time limit. The declaration assuming management of the lands also failed for want of objective standards: the Act treated grass-growing as agriculture, yet the impugned action rested on subjective satisfaction about efficiency and could not justify deprivation of use and enjoyment of the land. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289026