<?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>2019 (4) TMI 2185 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463916</link>
    <description>Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 was applied as an overriding statutory bar on transfer of granted land without prior Government permission, and that requirement was held to continue even after expiry of the grant&#039;s non-alienation period under the grant rules. The Court also held that the challenge to the sale transactions was not defeated by delay, laches, or alleged suppression, because the proceedings served the protective object of the statute and the facts did not justify leaving the transfers undisturbed. The impugned transactions were therefore treated as void for want of valid prior permission, and the orders restoring the lands were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:52:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=853749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 2185 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463916</link>
      <description>Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 was applied as an overriding statutory bar on transfer of granted land without prior Government permission, and that requirement was held to continue even after expiry of the grant&#039;s non-alienation period under the grant rules. The Court also held that the challenge to the sale transactions was not defeated by delay, laches, or alleged suppression, because the proceedings served the protective object of the statute and the facts did not justify leaving the transfers undisturbed. The impugned transactions were therefore treated as void for want of valid prior permission, and the orders restoring the lands were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>