<?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>1961 (3) TMI 149 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312582</link>
    <description>On statutory vesting of evacuee property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the property vests absolutely in the Central Government and the evacuee&#039;s interest is extinguished, so the Custodian&#039;s powers under the earlier evacuee property law cease to operate for that property. Cancellation of an allotment thereafter lies only with the authority designated under the 1954 Act. The saving protection in section 10 applies only where the allottee is in possession and continues to hold the property on the date of acquisition; that condition was not satisfied here. Rules 74 and 102 of the 1955 Rules did not revive the Custodian&#039;s authority or assist the challenge.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2024 15:19:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=744863" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (3) TMI 149 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312582</link>
      <description>On statutory vesting of evacuee property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, the property vests absolutely in the Central Government and the evacuee&#039;s interest is extinguished, so the Custodian&#039;s powers under the earlier evacuee property law cease to operate for that property. Cancellation of an allotment thereafter lies only with the authority designated under the 1954 Act. The saving protection in section 10 applies only where the allottee is in possession and continues to hold the property on the date of acquisition; that condition was not satisfied here. Rules 74 and 102 of the 1955 Rules did not revive the Custodian&#039;s authority or assist the challenge.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>