<?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>1993 (1) TMI 296 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184135</link>
    <description>A large-scale housing acquisition under urgency powers was discussed on the basis that a few structures on only a minor part of the land do not, by themselves, defeat urgency where the overall character of the tract and the need for a time-bound public scheme support immediate action. The text also notes that the statute did not require an express recital that the land was waste or arable, and that urgency could be justified by land scarcity and delay concerns. On withdrawal, it states that any tentative release was not a final rescission and that, once possession had been taken and delivered, withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 was no longer available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:25:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433344" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (1) TMI 296 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184135</link>
      <description>A large-scale housing acquisition under urgency powers was discussed on the basis that a few structures on only a minor part of the land do not, by themselves, defeat urgency where the overall character of the tract and the need for a time-bound public scheme support immediate action. The text also notes that the statute did not require an express recital that the land was waste or arable, and that urgency could be justified by land scarcity and delay concerns. On withdrawal, it states that any tentative release was not a final rescission and that, once possession had been taken and delivered, withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 was no longer available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>