<?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>1964 (1) TMI 66 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284022</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of proper references for court jurisdiction in determining compensation and upholding the compensation amount based on the accepted sale deeds analysis. The Court ruled that jurisdiction to determine compensation arises only through a reference from the Land Acquisition Officer and rejected the High Court&#039;s decision to reduce compensation without a proper reference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2019 18:27:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=591898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (1) TMI 66 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284022</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of proper references for court jurisdiction in determining compensation and upholding the compensation amount based on the accepted sale deeds analysis. The Court ruled that jurisdiction to determine compensation arises only through a reference from the Land Acquisition Officer and rejected the High Court&#039;s decision to reduce compensation without a proper reference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>