<?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>2006 (1) TMI 678 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291170</link>
    <description>Article 243W is an enabling provision that permits the State to confer municipal powers by law, but it does not by itself make existing planning legislation or land-use regulation inoperative. A constitutional challenge to Section 37(1AA) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was not entertained because the petitioners had not laid the factual foundation needed for a comprehensive attack on the statutory scheme. The Court also noted that the validity and interpretation of the MRTP Act and related regulations were already under consideration in other matters, and the impugned provisions had not become otiose merely due to the constitutional amendments. The special leave petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2020 14:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626559" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 678 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291170</link>
      <description>Article 243W is an enabling provision that permits the State to confer municipal powers by law, but it does not by itself make existing planning legislation or land-use regulation inoperative. A constitutional challenge to Section 37(1AA) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was not entertained because the petitioners had not laid the factual foundation needed for a comprehensive attack on the statutory scheme. The Court also noted that the validity and interpretation of the MRTP Act and related regulations were already under consideration in other matters, and the impugned provisions had not become otiose merely due to the constitutional amendments. The special leave petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291170</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>