<?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>1966 (3) TMI 99 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284600</link>
    <description>Section 2(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was construed as containing a general rule for non-displaced landowners and a separate special regime for displaced allottees under the second proviso. The proviso&#039;s clause (a), especially the words &quot;as the case may be,&quot; was read to mean that permissible area depends on the nature of the original allotment: 50 standard acres where the allotment was in standard acres, and 100 ordinary acres where it was in ordinary acres. The conversion formula in the main provision was held inapplicable to this proviso, which was treated as a complete and distinct code.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:54:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=595568" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (3) TMI 99 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284600</link>
      <description>Section 2(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was construed as containing a general rule for non-displaced landowners and a separate special regime for displaced allottees under the second proviso. The proviso&#039;s clause (a), especially the words &quot;as the case may be,&quot; was read to mean that permissible area depends on the nature of the original allotment: 50 standard acres where the allotment was in standard acres, and 100 ordinary acres where it was in ordinary acres. The conversion formula in the main provision was held inapplicable to this proviso, which was treated as a complete and distinct code.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>