<?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>2006 (3) TMI 799 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298366</link>
    <description>Revenue mutation entries did not create or transfer title, so the petitioner trust could not rely on them to claim ownership. The court accepted the State&#039;s record and covenant-based material showing that the erstwhile ruler&#039;s private properties were confined to the palace compound, while the disputed strip lay outside it beside the public road. Applying the broad statutory meaning of &quot;street&quot; and &quot;public street,&quot; the court treated the land between the palace boundary wall and the roadway as part of the public street under State control, leaving the petitioner with no enforceable title.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2021 17:58:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=659726" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 799 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298366</link>
      <description>Revenue mutation entries did not create or transfer title, so the petitioner trust could not rely on them to claim ownership. The court accepted the State&#039;s record and covenant-based material showing that the erstwhile ruler&#039;s private properties were confined to the palace compound, while the disputed strip lay outside it beside the public road. Applying the broad statutory meaning of &quot;street&quot; and &quot;public street,&quot; the court treated the land between the palace boundary wall and the roadway as part of the public street under State control, leaving the petitioner with no enforceable title.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298366</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>