<?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>2007 (7) TMI 690 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275829</link>
    <description>A development scheme for civic facilities may proceed under the Punjab Municipal Act without a sanctioned building scheme under Section 192, where the acquisition is for public utility works within municipal powers. Local publication of the substance of a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act is satisfied by wide publication in the locality; personal authorisation by the Collector or performance only by a public servant is not required, and irregularity will not invalidate the acquisition unless the statutory purpose of notice is defeated. The record also showed no denial of a meaningful opportunity to object under Section 5A, and the exclusion of some lands with sanctioned constructions did not establish discriminatory treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538795" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 690 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275829</link>
      <description>A development scheme for civic facilities may proceed under the Punjab Municipal Act without a sanctioned building scheme under Section 192, where the acquisition is for public utility works within municipal powers. Local publication of the substance of a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act is satisfied by wide publication in the locality; personal authorisation by the Collector or performance only by a public servant is not required, and irregularity will not invalidate the acquisition unless the statutory purpose of notice is defeated. The record also showed no denial of a meaningful opportunity to object under Section 5A, and the exclusion of some lands with sanctioned constructions did not establish discriminatory treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>