<?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>2005 (3) TMI 806 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276846</link>
    <description>The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 requires development permission, and unauthorized construction is liable to penal action and removal under the statutory scheme. Section 143 permits compounding in appropriate cases, but it does not confer a general power on a municipal council to regularize large-scale unauthorized construction by resolution, especially without a retention application or State approval. Payment of development charges does not cure illegality or create a right to regularisation. The Court emphasised that discretionary relief should not perpetuate deliberate illegality or undermine planned development, and upheld demolition of the unauthorized structure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2018 14:18:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542632" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 806 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276846</link>
      <description>The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 requires development permission, and unauthorized construction is liable to penal action and removal under the statutory scheme. Section 143 permits compounding in appropriate cases, but it does not confer a general power on a municipal council to regularize large-scale unauthorized construction by resolution, especially without a retention application or State approval. Payment of development charges does not cure illegality or create a right to regularisation. The Court emphasised that discretionary relief should not perpetuate deliberate illegality or undermine planned development, and upheld demolition of the unauthorized structure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>