<?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 (8) TMI 1935 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463934</link>
    <description>Relief under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 was declined because the remedial power was invoked after an inordinate delay of about 30 years. The Supreme Court applied the principle that, even where no express limitation period is prescribed, statutory power to disturb settled rights must be exercised within a reasonable time. Given the long lapse, the transferees&#039; settled possession and dealings with the land, and the absence of a timely challenge, the Court held that the claim was far beyond a reasonable period and refused to unsettle the transaction. The remaining questions of law were not examined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 19:05:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=854008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1935 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463934</link>
      <description>Relief under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 was declined because the remedial power was invoked after an inordinate delay of about 30 years. The Supreme Court applied the principle that, even where no express limitation period is prescribed, statutory power to disturb settled rights must be exercised within a reasonable time. Given the long lapse, the transferees&#039; settled possession and dealings with the land, and the absence of a timely challenge, the Court held that the claim was far beyond a reasonable period and refused to unsettle the transaction. The remaining questions of law were not examined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>