<?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>1967 (3) TMI 115 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197702</link>
    <description>The Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 was upheld as a valid law within the State Legislature&#039;s competence because it concerned land, development planning and reconstitution of plots, which fell within the relevant constitutional legislative fields. The Act&#039;s scheme of development plans, town planning schemes, valuation, acquisition, compensation and contribution was treated as part of a structured planning framework. It was also held not to infringe Articles 14, 19 or 31, because the legislation provided detailed procedural safeguards, reasoned decision-making, objections and appeal mechanisms, and adequate standards for valuation and contribution. The levy of contribution was treated as a statutory charge toward the cost of the scheme, not an arbitrary exaction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:40:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (3) TMI 115 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197702</link>
      <description>The Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 was upheld as a valid law within the State Legislature&#039;s competence because it concerned land, development planning and reconstitution of plots, which fell within the relevant constitutional legislative fields. The Act&#039;s scheme of development plans, town planning schemes, valuation, acquisition, compensation and contribution was treated as part of a structured planning framework. It was also held not to infringe Articles 14, 19 or 31, because the legislation provided detailed procedural safeguards, reasoned decision-making, objections and appeal mechanisms, and adequate standards for valuation and contribution. The levy of contribution was treated as a statutory charge toward the cost of the scheme, not an arbitrary exaction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>