<?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>1994 (10) TMI 309 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189717</link>
    <description>Section 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act did not authorise the Corporation to impose a condition in a sanctioned layout plan requiring free transfer of land reserved for parks and schools. The statutory power to sanction plans on conditions had to remain within the Act, and could not be used to divest the owner of title without express legislative authority. The scheme regulating private streets and layout control did not provide for vesting of reserved open space in the Corporation. Such reservation could justify supervision and management in the public interest, but not compulsory conveyance of ownership. The condition for free transfer was therefore beyond power, while the Corporation&#039;s managerial control was recognised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:18:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (10) TMI 309 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189717</link>
      <description>Section 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act did not authorise the Corporation to impose a condition in a sanctioned layout plan requiring free transfer of land reserved for parks and schools. The statutory power to sanction plans on conditions had to remain within the Act, and could not be used to divest the owner of title without express legislative authority. The scheme regulating private streets and layout control did not provide for vesting of reserved open space in the Corporation. Such reservation could justify supervision and management in the public interest, but not compulsory conveyance of ownership. The condition for free transfer was therefore beyond power, while the Corporation&#039;s managerial control was recognised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>