<?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>1997 (3) TMI 643 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299032</link>
    <description>Khas possession under Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act requires the intermediary&#039;s actual physical cultivatory possession, rather than a mere right to possess or paper claim. Although the inclusive provision protects certain leased lands, the intermediary must establish effective possession and animus possidendi. Continuous tenant possession since 1925, unsupported proof of the intermediary&#039;s retained control, and a Rule 7-E(iii) enquiry conducted without notice or opportunity to the appellant prevented reliance on revenue entries to displace longstanding possession. The land was not proved to be in the intermediary&#039;s khas possession, so the respondent&#039;s title claim failed and the decree was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2021 11:12:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 643 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299032</link>
      <description>Khas possession under Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act requires the intermediary&#039;s actual physical cultivatory possession, rather than a mere right to possess or paper claim. Although the inclusive provision protects certain leased lands, the intermediary must establish effective possession and animus possidendi. Continuous tenant possession since 1925, unsupported proof of the intermediary&#039;s retained control, and a Rule 7-E(iii) enquiry conducted without notice or opportunity to the appellant prevented reliance on revenue entries to displace longstanding possession. The land was not proved to be in the intermediary&#039;s khas possession, so the respondent&#039;s title claim failed and the decree was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>