<?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>1997 (12) TMI 648 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173702</link>
    <description>The amended Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act exempted religious institutions from proving personal cultivation for ryotwari patta under Section 9(2)(a), because the proviso was intended to remove the hardship faced by temples and similar institutions under the HR &amp; CE regime. The absence of a matching change in the definition clause did not defeat that exemption. Section 65 raised only a rebuttable presumption that the land was ryoti land, and the revenue and tenancy records, showing the temple as pattadar and the appellant as tenant, rebutted any contrary claim to independent kudivaram rights. The statutory scheme therefore supported the temple&#039;s entitlement to patta.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:10:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 648 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173702</link>
      <description>The amended Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act exempted religious institutions from proving personal cultivation for ryotwari patta under Section 9(2)(a), because the proviso was intended to remove the hardship faced by temples and similar institutions under the HR &amp; CE regime. The absence of a matching change in the definition clause did not defeat that exemption. Section 65 raised only a rebuttable presumption that the land was ryoti land, and the revenue and tenancy records, showing the temple as pattadar and the appellant as tenant, rebutted any contrary claim to independent kudivaram rights. The statutory scheme therefore supported the temple&#039;s entitlement to patta.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>