<?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>1963 (11) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288020</link>
    <description>A shrotriem village was treated as an &quot;estate&quot; under the Madras Estates (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 because the grant covered the named village, including dry lands and poramboke, and minor inams did not amount to a reservation excluding it from the statutory definition; the rent-reduction notification was therefore valid. Under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, the scheme conferring power on the Settlement Officer, with notice, hearing, evidence, appeal and finality, impliedly excluded civil court jurisdiction on the statutory question whether an admitted inam village was an inam estate. Civil court scrutiny remained possible only on the preliminary jurisdictional fact that the property was an inam village.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2020 12:55:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (11) TMI 101 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288020</link>
      <description>A shrotriem village was treated as an &quot;estate&quot; under the Madras Estates (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 because the grant covered the named village, including dry lands and poramboke, and minor inams did not amount to a reservation excluding it from the statutory definition; the rent-reduction notification was therefore valid. Under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, the scheme conferring power on the Settlement Officer, with notice, hearing, evidence, appeal and finality, impliedly excluded civil court jurisdiction on the statutory question whether an admitted inam village was an inam estate. Civil court scrutiny remained possible only on the preliminary jurisdictional fact that the property was an inam village.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288020</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>