https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292729 Ryoti land could be validly converted into private or kamatam land before the Estates Land Act, and the Act was not read retrospectively to unsettle completed conversions. The Court treated Section 185 as a rule of evidence rather than a substantive prohibition, and held that Section 8 did not invalidate earlier changes in land character absent clear language. On the facts, the records and subsequent treatment of the lands showed they had long been absorbed into the Zamindar's private estate, so the first defendant's claim to occupancy rights failed because the lands were private, not ryoti. en-us Tue, 04 May 1926 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jan 2021 12:37:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292729 Ryoti land could be validly converted into private or kamatam land before the Estates Land Act, and the Act was not read retrospectively to unsettle completed conversions. The Court treated Section 185 as a rule of evidence rather than a substantive prohibition, and held that Section 8 did not invalidate earlier changes in land character absent clear language. On the facts, the records and subsequent treatment of the lands showed they had long been absorbed into the Zamindar's private estate, so the first defendant's claim to occupancy rights failed because the lands were private, not ryoti. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 May 1926 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292729