<?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>1979 (7) TMI 255 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299033</link>
    <description>Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 saves only land in the intermediary&#039;s khas possession on the date of vesting, meaning actual possession or cultivation by the intermediary or through servants, hired labour, or hired stock. Land actually held by tenants-at-will does not qualify, because a tenant-at-will has a lawful possessory right until tenancy is validly terminated and is not the landlord&#039;s possession. A mere right to recover possession is therefore insufficient to constitute khas possession. The text also notes that an alleged settlement raised during the proceedings and an objection based on an earlier procedural order did not provide a basis to disturb the High Court&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2021 11:38:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (7) TMI 255 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299033</link>
      <description>Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 saves only land in the intermediary&#039;s khas possession on the date of vesting, meaning actual possession or cultivation by the intermediary or through servants, hired labour, or hired stock. Land actually held by tenants-at-will does not qualify, because a tenant-at-will has a lawful possessory right until tenancy is validly terminated and is not the landlord&#039;s possession. A mere right to recover possession is therefore insufficient to constitute khas possession. The text also notes that an alleged settlement raised during the proceedings and an objection based on an earlier procedural order did not provide a basis to disturb the High Court&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>