https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288584 Land under construction was not excluded from "vacant land" under section 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 because the requisite approval for construction had not existed on the appointed day; later municipal sanctions could not cure that statutory defect, and the Act prevailed over inconsistent local law. A monetary penalty could not validly be imposed as a condition for exemption under section 20(1)(b), because such exemption conditions must be germane to the object of relieving hardship and no provision authorised a penal burden through an executive circular. The order was therefore sustained on the vacant land issue but struck down to the extent it imposed penalty. en-us Wed, 22 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:58:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288584 Land under construction was not excluded from "vacant land" under section 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 because the requisite approval for construction had not existed on the appointed day; later municipal sanctions could not cure that statutory defect, and the Act prevailed over inconsistent local law. A monetary penalty could not validly be imposed as a condition for exemption under section 20(1)(b), because such exemption conditions must be germane to the object of relieving hardship and no provision authorised a penal burden through an executive circular. The order was therefore sustained on the vacant land issue but struck down to the extent it imposed penalty. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 22 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288584