<?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>1986 (3) TMI 333 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180140</link>
    <description>Section 44 of the Maharashtra Housing and Development Act, 1976 was analysed as a valuation and acquisition scheme for land in municipal areas. The Court treated the different valuation method for municipal land, as compared with rural land under the general acquisition law, as a rational classification because municipal land has higher potentialities and the Act applies uniformly within each class. It accepted capitalization as a recognised valuation method and held that the statutory deductions were explained by the scheme. The acquisition and redistribution of land for housing and civic amenities were held to further Article 39(b), so the provisions were protected by Article 31C and were not invalid under Articles 14, 19, 21 or 31.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 14:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420476" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 333 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180140</link>
      <description>Section 44 of the Maharashtra Housing and Development Act, 1976 was analysed as a valuation and acquisition scheme for land in municipal areas. The Court treated the different valuation method for municipal land, as compared with rural land under the general acquisition law, as a rational classification because municipal land has higher potentialities and the Act applies uniformly within each class. It accepted capitalization as a recognised valuation method and held that the statutory deductions were explained by the scheme. The acquisition and redistribution of land for housing and civic amenities were held to further Article 39(b), so the provisions were protected by Article 31C and were not invalid under Articles 14, 19, 21 or 31.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>