<?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>1996 (1) TMI 487 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462902</link>
    <description>The Court held that ryotwari pattas granted under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 conferred absolute rights, title and interest, subject only to that Act&#039;s incidents. Explanation II to Section 2(22) and Section 76 of the 1987 Endowments Act were invalid to the extent they deemed such pattas non-existent, treated the lands as religious endowments, and nullified transfers made under them. The later Act could not, without amending or repealing the earlier self-contained statute, indirectly destroy vested rights already crystallised under it. The impugned provisions were struck down insofar as they conflicted with the earlier statutory scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 16:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 487 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462902</link>
      <description>The Court held that ryotwari pattas granted under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 conferred absolute rights, title and interest, subject only to that Act&#039;s incidents. Explanation II to Section 2(22) and Section 76 of the 1987 Endowments Act were invalid to the extent they deemed such pattas non-existent, treated the lands as religious endowments, and nullified transfers made under them. The later Act could not, without amending or repealing the earlier self-contained statute, indirectly destroy vested rights already crystallised under it. The impugned provisions were struck down insofar as they conflicted with the earlier statutory scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>