<?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>2009 (9) TMI 713 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128175</link>
    <description>A validating statute may retrospectively cure the defect that led to earlier invalidation if it removes the legal basis of that decision, and the amended proviso was upheld as valid for that purpose. Non-payment or short payment of estimated compensation before possession did not invalidate the acquisition once possession had been taken and the land had vested; any default gave rise only to monetary consequences, not lapse of proceedings. The Article 14 challenge and objection to invocation of urgency also failed because the urgency power was applied for planned housing development, with no established arbitrariness or mala fide classification. The acquisition notifications and validating legislation were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2014 11:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 713 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128175</link>
      <description>A validating statute may retrospectively cure the defect that led to earlier invalidation if it removes the legal basis of that decision, and the amended proviso was upheld as valid for that purpose. Non-payment or short payment of estimated compensation before possession did not invalidate the acquisition once possession had been taken and the land had vested; any default gave rise only to monetary consequences, not lapse of proceedings. The Article 14 challenge and objection to invocation of urgency also failed because the urgency power was applied for planned housing development, with no established arbitrariness or mala fide classification. The acquisition notifications and validating legislation were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128175</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>