<?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 396 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311674</link>
    <description>The authority that actually made a land assignment may cancel it for breach of the assignment conditions, because the power to assign includes the power to resume or cancel under the governing rule. Cancellation, however, must ordinarily be preceded by a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person whose rights are directly affected; where the purchaser from the assignee has acquired possession and title, that purchaser is the affected party. Although alienation in breach of a 12-year condition was admitted, interference under Article 226 was declined because the material facts already established the validity of cancellation and a remand would serve no useful purpose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2024 11:07:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=739351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (11) TMI 396 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311674</link>
      <description>The authority that actually made a land assignment may cancel it for breach of the assignment conditions, because the power to assign includes the power to resume or cancel under the governing rule. Cancellation, however, must ordinarily be preceded by a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person whose rights are directly affected; where the purchaser from the assignee has acquired possession and title, that purchaser is the affected party. Although alienation in breach of a 12-year condition was admitted, interference under Article 226 was declined because the material facts already established the validity of cancellation and a remand would serve no useful purpose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>