<?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>1950 (6) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290408</link>
    <description>The Bihar State Management of Estates and Tenures Act, 1949 is analysed as exceeding provincial legislative competence because its substance transferred control of estates and tenures to the State and substantially curtailed proprietors&#039; rights of management, alienation, mortgage and lease, rather than merely regulating land relations. The scheme is further characterised as violating property protections because it lacked genuine public purpose and lawful compensation, and imposed unreasonable restrictions on property rights. A Presidential certificate confined to compulsory-acquisition objections could not cure lack of legislative competence or other constitutional defects. The integrated provisions governing management, liabilities, rents, remedies and priorities were not severable, leaving the statutory scheme wholly void.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2020 18:37:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=623152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1950 (6) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290408</link>
      <description>The Bihar State Management of Estates and Tenures Act, 1949 is analysed as exceeding provincial legislative competence because its substance transferred control of estates and tenures to the State and substantially curtailed proprietors&#039; rights of management, alienation, mortgage and lease, rather than merely regulating land relations. The scheme is further characterised as violating property protections because it lacked genuine public purpose and lawful compensation, and imposed unreasonable restrictions on property rights. A Presidential certificate confined to compulsory-acquisition objections could not cure lack of legislative competence or other constitutional defects. The integrated provisions governing management, liabilities, rents, remedies and priorities were not severable, leaving the statutory scheme wholly void.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 1950 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>