<?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>1954 (5) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279564</link>
    <description>A residential housing scheme for a co-operative society was treated as capable of falling within the expression &quot;work&quot; under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, because the term was given a broad ordinary meaning and a housing shortage could support public utility. The text also states that judicial review could, in principle, be sought before a Section 6 notification if the statutory preconditions for acquisition were not met, and that the finality attached to the Government&#039;s Section 5-A decision did not exclude constitutional writ jurisdiction absent express exclusion. On that basis, the proposed acquisition was regarded as within the statute and no writ relief was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:50:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (5) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279564</link>
      <description>A residential housing scheme for a co-operative society was treated as capable of falling within the expression &quot;work&quot; under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, because the term was given a broad ordinary meaning and a housing shortage could support public utility. The text also states that judicial review could, in principle, be sought before a Section 6 notification if the statutory preconditions for acquisition were not met, and that the finality attached to the Government&#039;s Section 5-A decision did not exclude constitutional writ jurisdiction absent express exclusion. On that basis, the proposed acquisition was regarded as within the statute and no writ relief was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>