<?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>1974 (8) TMI 113 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176023</link>
    <description>In large-scale land acquisition for planned development of Delhi, a broadly stated public purpose was held sufficient where the challenge was delayed and third-party rights had intervened, so the vagueness objection failed with laches and acquiescence. The delay in completing acquisition was not treated as inordinate in light of objections and related writ proceedings, and the compensation scheme under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not struck down on the ground of inadequacy because a pre-Constitution law was protected and the complaint was only about compensation. Acquisition could proceed under the Land Acquisition Act despite the Delhi Development Act framework, and later allotment to cooperative housing societies did not make the matter one for companies under Part VII.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2016 10:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (8) TMI 113 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176023</link>
      <description>In large-scale land acquisition for planned development of Delhi, a broadly stated public purpose was held sufficient where the challenge was delayed and third-party rights had intervened, so the vagueness objection failed with laches and acquiescence. The delay in completing acquisition was not treated as inordinate in light of objections and related writ proceedings, and the compensation scheme under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not struck down on the ground of inadequacy because a pre-Constitution law was protected and the complaint was only about compensation. Acquisition could proceed under the Land Acquisition Act despite the Delhi Development Act framework, and later allotment to cooperative housing societies did not make the matter one for companies under Part VII.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176023</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>