<?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>2011 (1) TMI 1307 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169905</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court quashed most of the land acquisition proceedings, except for 35 kanals. Despite the legal position, the Court ordered the refund of unjustified deductions totaling &amp;amp;8377; 44,85,179/- and &amp;amp;8377; 11,00,000/- to the applicant due to faulty notification by the State Government. The Court held that the applicant was not responsible for the errors leading to the quashing of the acquisition. The State Government was directed to refund the amounts representing acquisition and departmental charges, along with super structure charges. The applicant&#039;s applications were disposed of with no costs ordered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 Dec 2015 18:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1307 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169905</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court quashed most of the land acquisition proceedings, except for 35 kanals. Despite the legal position, the Court ordered the refund of unjustified deductions totaling &amp;amp;8377; 44,85,179/- and &amp;amp;8377; 11,00,000/- to the applicant due to faulty notification by the State Government. The Court held that the applicant was not responsible for the errors leading to the quashing of the acquisition. The State Government was directed to refund the amounts representing acquisition and departmental charges, along with super structure charges. The applicant&#039;s applications were disposed of with no costs ordered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>