<?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 article examines the Bihar State Management of Estates and Tenures Act, 1949 and explains that its substance went beyond ordinary land regulation, as it transferred control of estates to the State, curtailed proprietary powers, and restructured land rights. It further notes that the Act was treated as inconsistent with Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and later with Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution because it lacked a genuine compensation scheme and did not disclose a real public purpose. The discussion also states that a Presidential certificate under Article 31(6) could not cure invalidity beyond the compensation ground, and that the statutory scheme was not severable.</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 article examines the Bihar State Management of Estates and Tenures Act, 1949 and explains that its substance went beyond ordinary land regulation, as it transferred control of estates to the State, curtailed proprietary powers, and restructured land rights. It further notes that the Act was treated as inconsistent with Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and later with Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution because it lacked a genuine compensation scheme and did not disclose a real public purpose. The discussion also states that a Presidential certificate under Article 31(6) could not cure invalidity beyond the compensation ground, and that the statutory scheme was not severable.</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>