<?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>2015 (11) TMI 1289 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268480</link>
    <description>A town development scheme must conform to the constitutional framework of local self-government and the statutory planning hierarchy under the 1973 Act; bypassing elected local bodies, the district planning process, and mandatory approval steps renders the scheme invalid. A development authority cannot frame a scheme without a valid zonal plan or lawfully reconstitute plots and alter land use beyond the public-purpose limits of the statute. A fixed 35% return of developed land, with 65% retained, was held arbitrary and unsupported by lawful methodology. The environmental clearance process was also defective because the project changed materially without fresh clearance from the competent authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2022 13:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1289 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268480</link>
      <description>A town development scheme must conform to the constitutional framework of local self-government and the statutory planning hierarchy under the 1973 Act; bypassing elected local bodies, the district planning process, and mandatory approval steps renders the scheme invalid. A development authority cannot frame a scheme without a valid zonal plan or lawfully reconstitute plots and alter land use beyond the public-purpose limits of the statute. A fixed 35% return of developed land, with 65% retained, was held arbitrary and unsupported by lawful methodology. The environmental clearance process was also defective because the project changed materially without fresh clearance from the competent authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>