https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193395 The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 40(3)(jj) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, emphasizing that the increase in land reserved for public purposes was within legislative competence and did not violate constitutional rights. The Court found that the statutory provisions and actions of Municipal Corporations were legal, rejecting claims of inadequate compensation and unconstitutional provisions. The Court clarified the impact of land reservation lapses and directed a fair hearing process for objections. Civil Appeal Nos. 1542-44, 1545-50, and 1551-56 of 2001 were allowed, while Civil Appeal No. 1864 of 2014 and Transferred Case (C) Nos. 12-13 of 2010 were dismissed. en-us Fri, 09 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:47:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193395 The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 40(3)(jj) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, emphasizing that the increase in land reserved for public purposes was within legislative competence and did not violate constitutional rights. The Court found that the statutory provisions and actions of Municipal Corporations were legal, rejecting claims of inadequate compensation and unconstitutional provisions. The Court clarified the impact of land reservation lapses and directed a fair hearing process for objections. Civil Appeal Nos. 1542-44, 1545-50, and 1551-56 of 2001 were allowed, while Civil Appeal No. 1864 of 2014 and Transferred Case (C) Nos. 12-13 of 2010 were dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193395