<?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>2008 (7) TMI 944 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165473</link>
    <description>Land notified for acquisition could not be validly transferred under the Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 unless prior written permission of the competent authority was obtained and the prescribed procedure was followed. Because the appellants could not show a proper application, competent-authority approval, or statutory compliance, the exception permitting transfer of acquisition-affected land was construed strictly and the sale deeds were held incapable of conveying title. A subsequent purchaser could not defeat the acquisition proceedings and, at most, could claim compensation. The mutation based on such unlawful transfers was also without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 944 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165473</link>
      <description>Land notified for acquisition could not be validly transferred under the Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 unless prior written permission of the competent authority was obtained and the prescribed procedure was followed. Because the appellants could not show a proper application, competent-authority approval, or statutory compliance, the exception permitting transfer of acquisition-affected land was construed strictly and the sale deeds were held incapable of conveying title. A subsequent purchaser could not defeat the acquisition proceedings and, at most, could claim compensation. The mutation based on such unlawful transfers was also without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>