<?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>2005 (3) TMI 761 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174250</link>
    <description>A rehabilitation award with an inclusive definition of &quot;family&quot; was applied broadly to affected persons, so temporary and permanent submergence victims were treated alike for rehabilitation purposes. Major sons were recognised as separate entitled families, and where a father had died before the acquisition notification, adult sons stood in the position of landholders in their own right and could claim alternate agricultural land, not merely house sites. The scheme did not give families an absolute right to choose the location of allotment; the entitlement was to suitable irrigable and cultivable land from the land bank, with unsuitability capable of review through the grievance mechanism.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 761 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174250</link>
      <description>A rehabilitation award with an inclusive definition of &quot;family&quot; was applied broadly to affected persons, so temporary and permanent submergence victims were treated alike for rehabilitation purposes. Major sons were recognised as separate entitled families, and where a father had died before the acquisition notification, adult sons stood in the position of landholders in their own right and could claim alternate agricultural land, not merely house sites. The scheme did not give families an absolute right to choose the location of allotment; the entitlement was to suitable irrigable and cultivable land from the land bank, with unsuitability capable of review through the grievance mechanism.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>