<?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>2013 (8) TMI 1122 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285665</link>
    <description>Unauthorised RCC staircase and roof construction made without prior municipal sanction, and partly resting on a neighbouring parapet wall, was treated as liable to demolition because it encroached on the adjoining owner&#039;s premises and affected structural safety. The construction was held not to be a minor or retainable deviation, and regularisation was not permissible. The appellate and review orders affirming demolition were described as reasoned, based on the material on record, and free from legal infirmity; the review was also considered untenable as a rehearing on the merits. The demolition direction was therefore affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2020 12:08:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 1122 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285665</link>
      <description>Unauthorised RCC staircase and roof construction made without prior municipal sanction, and partly resting on a neighbouring parapet wall, was treated as liable to demolition because it encroached on the adjoining owner&#039;s premises and affected structural safety. The construction was held not to be a minor or retainable deviation, and regularisation was not permissible. The appellate and review orders affirming demolition were described as reasoned, based on the material on record, and free from legal infirmity; the review was also considered untenable as a rehearing on the merits. The demolition direction was therefore affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>