<?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>2006 (1) TMI 626 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184043</link>
    <description>Disposition of development-authority land must strictly follow the governing statute, rules and master plan; a general executive policy cannot override the special planning law or expand the State&#039;s power to direct allotment. The Court further held that land reserved for a different use could not be allotted on concessional terms without compliance with the prescribed procedure, including the relevant rule-based restrictions and mandatory safeguards. An allotment made for an unauthorized purpose, or by bypassing advertisement and other required steps, was treated as illegal and void, reflecting malice in law. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered by the competent authority in accordance with the Act, Rules and plan.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 626 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184043</link>
      <description>Disposition of development-authority land must strictly follow the governing statute, rules and master plan; a general executive policy cannot override the special planning law or expand the State&#039;s power to direct allotment. The Court further held that land reserved for a different use could not be allotted on concessional terms without compliance with the prescribed procedure, including the relevant rule-based restrictions and mandatory safeguards. An allotment made for an unauthorized purpose, or by bypassing advertisement and other required steps, was treated as illegal and void, reflecting malice in law. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered by the competent authority in accordance with the Act, Rules and plan.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>