<?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>1954 (9) TMI 32 - High Court Of Calcutta</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193343</link>
    <description>Compensation for wartime requisition of forest land is to be assessed on a fair and reasonable basis for the period of occupation, with damage caused during requisition separately valued as terminal damage. The exceptional principle of reinstatement applies only where ordinary valuation would be unfair, reinstatement is reasonably practicable, and it is genuinely intended; on these facts, it was not attracted. The proper approach was reasonable rental value for occupation and separate assessment for uprooting or cutting of trees, not reliance on a prior governmental offer or speculative afforestation costs. The compensation basis was therefore reworked to the legally recoverable items.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:05:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=482648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (9) TMI 32 - High Court Of Calcutta</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193343</link>
      <description>Compensation for wartime requisition of forest land is to be assessed on a fair and reasonable basis for the period of occupation, with damage caused during requisition separately valued as terminal damage. The exceptional principle of reinstatement applies only where ordinary valuation would be unfair, reinstatement is reasonably practicable, and it is genuinely intended; on these facts, it was not attracted. The proper approach was reasonable rental value for occupation and separate assessment for uprooting or cutting of trees, not reliance on a prior governmental offer or speculative afforestation costs. The compensation basis was therefore reworked to the legally recoverable items.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>