<?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>2004 (11) TMI 591 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189279</link>
    <description>A statutory power under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be exercised only within its limited scope: the Additional Commissioner could consider objections under Section 5A, but had no adjudicatory jurisdiction to cancel a Section 4 notification, restore acquisition proceedings, or direct a Section 6 declaration. The Land Acquisition Act procedure could not be displaced by treating the matter as an exercise of general revisional power under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and action taken without statutory authority was ultra vires. Concurrent orders granting non-agricultural permission were also left undisturbed because no sustainable ground existed to upset them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2017 15:16:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 591 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189279</link>
      <description>A statutory power under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be exercised only within its limited scope: the Additional Commissioner could consider objections under Section 5A, but had no adjudicatory jurisdiction to cancel a Section 4 notification, restore acquisition proceedings, or direct a Section 6 declaration. The Land Acquisition Act procedure could not be displaced by treating the matter as an exercise of general revisional power under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and action taken without statutory authority was ultra vires. Concurrent orders granting non-agricultural permission were also left undisturbed because no sustainable ground existed to upset them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189279</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>