<?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>1997 (7) TMI 667 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182354</link>
    <description>Service of requisition notice on the person recorded as owner in official land records was treated as valid where subsequent purchasers had not yet completed mutation, because the authority could rely on the presumptively correct record of rights without conducting a further inquiry into unmutated transfers. Requisition and acquisition for a housing project were also upheld as serving a public purpose, since the scheme was directed to affordable housing for low and middle income groups and remained under State control. The presence of a profit element did not, by itself, establish colourable exercise of power, absent mala fides, arbitrariness, or abuse of authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2016 15:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 667 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182354</link>
      <description>Service of requisition notice on the person recorded as owner in official land records was treated as valid where subsequent purchasers had not yet completed mutation, because the authority could rely on the presumptively correct record of rights without conducting a further inquiry into unmutated transfers. Requisition and acquisition for a housing project were also upheld as serving a public purpose, since the scheme was directed to affordable housing for low and middle income groups and remained under State control. The presence of a profit element did not, by itself, establish colourable exercise of power, absent mala fides, arbitrariness, or abuse of authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>