<?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>2010 (11) TMI 1061 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196599</link>
    <description>Land treated in earlier proceedings, conveyance documents and revenue records as forest land was held to fall within the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, because the statutory definitions of &quot;forest&quot; and &quot;private forest&quot; extend to land forming part of, or lying within, a forest on the appointed day. The rocky or quarry-used character of portions did not displace its essential forest character, and the land vested in the State Government. Service of notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was treated as sufficient compliance, and the vesting scheme was upheld as neither irrational nor disproportionate in light of its environmental and conservation purpose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 14:42:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 1061 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196599</link>
      <description>Land treated in earlier proceedings, conveyance documents and revenue records as forest land was held to fall within the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, because the statutory definitions of &quot;forest&quot; and &quot;private forest&quot; extend to land forming part of, or lying within, a forest on the appointed day. The rocky or quarry-used character of portions did not displace its essential forest character, and the land vested in the State Government. Service of notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was treated as sufficient compliance, and the vesting scheme was upheld as neither irrational nor disproportionate in light of its environmental and conservation purpose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196599</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>