<?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>1978 (11) TMI 160 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193079</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the stay petition filed by Bharat Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur, regarding possession of disputed land (Khasra Nos. 87 and 88). The court found that the respondents had established possession with documents dating back to 1977, rejecting the petitioner&#039;s claim of only &quot;paper possession.&quot; It held that the acquisition for a housing scheme constituted public utility under Article 226(6) of the Constitution, emphasizing the project&#039;s benefit to the public. The court noted the lack of irreparable injury to the petitioner and the delay in challenging the acquisition, leading to the dismissal of the stay application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:10:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=480950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 160 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193079</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the stay petition filed by Bharat Bhawan Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur, regarding possession of disputed land (Khasra Nos. 87 and 88). The court found that the respondents had established possession with documents dating back to 1977, rejecting the petitioner&#039;s claim of only &quot;paper possession.&quot; It held that the acquisition for a housing scheme constituted public utility under Article 226(6) of the Constitution, emphasizing the project&#039;s benefit to the public. The court noted the lack of irreparable injury to the petitioner and the delay in challenging the acquisition, leading to the dismissal of the stay application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>