<?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>1992 (9) TMI 318 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157091</link>
    <description>Senior allotment of Nazul land to cooperative group housing societies was held to remain linked to the date of registration, because a later memorandum making priority depend on approval of the final membership list conflicted with Rule 6(vi), departed from settled administrative practice, and created an uncertain and potentially arbitrary criterion. The change also offended legitimate expectation and fair administrative procedure, as no prior notice or opportunity to represent was given. Challenges to the writ petitions for non-impleadment also failed, because the later allotments were only provisional, subject to the pending proceedings, and caused no real prejudice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (9) TMI 318 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157091</link>
      <description>Senior allotment of Nazul land to cooperative group housing societies was held to remain linked to the date of registration, because a later memorandum making priority depend on approval of the final membership list conflicted with Rule 6(vi), departed from settled administrative practice, and created an uncertain and potentially arbitrary criterion. The change also offended legitimate expectation and fair administrative procedure, as no prior notice or opportunity to represent was given. Challenges to the writ petitions for non-impleadment also failed, because the later allotments were only provisional, subject to the pending proceedings, and caused no real prejudice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157091</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>