<?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>2001 (8) TMI 1396 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181049</link>
    <description>Charitable and religious institution lands were treated as a distinct class, and tenants under such lands could be separately dealt with for resumption and better management of the properties; Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable &amp; Hindu Religious Institutions &amp; Endowments Act, 1987 was therefore upheld under Article 14 because the classification had an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the statutory object. The challenge based on exclusion of landless poor persons, and the connected objections under Articles 21 and 31A, also failed because the statute itself provided a protective purchase mechanism and the alleged hardship was treated as an incident of the scheme, not unconstitutional discrimination. The provision was sustained as constitutionally valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:12:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1396 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181049</link>
      <description>Charitable and religious institution lands were treated as a distinct class, and tenants under such lands could be separately dealt with for resumption and better management of the properties; Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable &amp; Hindu Religious Institutions &amp; Endowments Act, 1987 was therefore upheld under Article 14 because the classification had an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the statutory object. The challenge based on exclusion of landless poor persons, and the connected objections under Articles 21 and 31A, also failed because the statute itself provided a protective purchase mechanism and the alleged hardship was treated as an incident of the scheme, not unconstitutional discrimination. The provision was sustained as constitutionally valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>