<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1720 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276884</link>
    <description>Regularization of unauthorized constructions under the Maharashtra planning regime is permissible only within the existing statutory framework and only where retention is consistent with the draft or sanctioned development plan, Development Control Regulations, and other applicable law. A draft policy that sought to regularize constructions on reserved land, public land, ecologically sensitive areas, and other locations where lawful development could not be granted was treated as going beyond the statute, because it also contemplated shifting or deleting reservations and transferring public property in favour of encroachers. Such a policy was held illegal and arbitrary, and blanket regularization outside the planning law regime was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:34:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1720 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276884</link>
      <description>Regularization of unauthorized constructions under the Maharashtra planning regime is permissible only within the existing statutory framework and only where retention is consistent with the draft or sanctioned development plan, Development Control Regulations, and other applicable law. A draft policy that sought to regularize constructions on reserved land, public land, ecologically sensitive areas, and other locations where lawful development could not be granted was treated as going beyond the statute, because it also contemplated shifting or deleting reservations and transferring public property in favour of encroachers. Such a policy was held illegal and arbitrary, and blanket regularization outside the planning law regime was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>