<?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>2002 (4) TMI 975 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198932</link>
    <description>Gram Panchayat shamlat deh land could be gifted only within the limits of the governing statute and approved conditions; transfers made outside the classes permitted by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act and Rules were invalid. The gifts to the Trust were therefore treated as illegal and void ab initio, and the Trust had no right to retain the land. Forest land could not be diverted to non-forest use or assigned to a private person without prior Central Government approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; because the required forest release conditions were not complied with, the transfer and continued occupation were impermissible and restoration of the land was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:10:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 975 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198932</link>
      <description>Gram Panchayat shamlat deh land could be gifted only within the limits of the governing statute and approved conditions; transfers made outside the classes permitted by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act and Rules were invalid. The gifts to the Trust were therefore treated as illegal and void ab initio, and the Trust had no right to retain the land. Forest land could not be diverted to non-forest use or assigned to a private person without prior Central Government approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; because the required forest release conditions were not complied with, the transfer and continued occupation were impermissible and restoration of the land was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198932</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>