<?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>2003 (12) TMI 648 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189263</link>
    <description>Rights in municipal immovable property arise only on strict compliance with the governing statutory procedure, including payment within the stipulated time, valid sanction, and execution of the required registered instrument. Where the balance premium was not paid within the extended period and no registered lease deed was executed, no enforceable right or title survived and the allotment stood cancelled. A later municipal order or resolution entered without statutory authority, fresh lawful material, or proper procedure was invalid and incapable of reviving the cancelled claim. The public interest petition was treated as raising a genuine issue concerning misuse of public property, and the High Court&#039;s interference was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jun 2024 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 648 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189263</link>
      <description>Rights in municipal immovable property arise only on strict compliance with the governing statutory procedure, including payment within the stipulated time, valid sanction, and execution of the required registered instrument. Where the balance premium was not paid within the extended period and no registered lease deed was executed, no enforceable right or title survived and the allotment stood cancelled. A later municipal order or resolution entered without statutory authority, fresh lawful material, or proper procedure was invalid and incapable of reviving the cancelled claim. The public interest petition was treated as raising a genuine issue concerning misuse of public property, and the High Court&#039;s interference was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>