https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463167 Under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, deemed vesting under Section 10(3) was held insufficient by itself to defeat the Repeal Act unless the State proved actual physical possession before repeal. Compliance with Section 10(5) was mandatory, and resort to Section 10(6) required valid service and lapse of the prescribed time. On the facts, unexplained date discrepancies, weak proof of service, and an unconvincing panchnama failed to establish lawful dispossession, while continued factory use supported the landholder's possession. The proceedings therefore did not survive the repeal, and the landholder retained the benefit of the Repeal Act. en-us Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Aug 2025 20:56:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463167 Under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, deemed vesting under Section 10(3) was held insufficient by itself to defeat the Repeal Act unless the State proved actual physical possession before repeal. Compliance with Section 10(5) was mandatory, and resort to Section 10(6) required valid service and lapse of the prescribed time. On the facts, unexplained date discrepancies, weak proof of service, and an unconvincing panchnama failed to establish lawful dispossession, while continued factory use supported the landholder's possession. The proceedings therefore did not survive the repeal, and the landholder retained the benefit of the Repeal Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463167