<?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>1986 (11) TMI 394 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302257</link>
    <description>Article 7 of Schedule I to the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 was construed broadly, with &quot;any interest&quot; given a wide, non-technical meaning rather than the narrower phrase &quot;right, title and interest&quot; in immovable property. The scheme of Section 3(6) and Schedule I was read together to support recovery of public demands through the Act&#039;s special procedure. On that construction, the Collector may recover the agreed settlement amount from a settlee of a hat, bazar or mela as a public demand even if no duly executed registered lease deed exists. The earlier restrictive view, which treated the absence of a registered deed as decisive, was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2022 11:09:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=678896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (11) TMI 394 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302257</link>
      <description>Article 7 of Schedule I to the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 was construed broadly, with &quot;any interest&quot; given a wide, non-technical meaning rather than the narrower phrase &quot;right, title and interest&quot; in immovable property. The scheme of Section 3(6) and Schedule I was read together to support recovery of public demands through the Act&#039;s special procedure. On that construction, the Collector may recover the agreed settlement amount from a settlee of a hat, bazar or mela as a public demand even if no duly executed registered lease deed exists. The earlier restrictive view, which treated the absence of a registered deed as decisive, was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302257</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>