<?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>2010 (7) TMI 1198 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296171</link>
    <description>Section 5A enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act is a valuable safeguard and can be dispensed with only on real urgency supported by material showing that exclusion of the hearing is necessary; planned development or residential housing, by itself, does not justify that step. On the facts noted, the record did not show application of mind to the need for dispensing with the enquiry, so the notifications were legally infirm to that extent. As to release of land under Section 48, no direct release was ordered because the factual claim about existing structures was disputed, but the landowners were left free to seek consideration by the State in accordance with law, since possession had not been taken.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2021 19:06:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 1198 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296171</link>
      <description>Section 5A enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act is a valuable safeguard and can be dispensed with only on real urgency supported by material showing that exclusion of the hearing is necessary; planned development or residential housing, by itself, does not justify that step. On the facts noted, the record did not show application of mind to the need for dispensing with the enquiry, so the notifications were legally infirm to that extent. As to release of land under Section 48, no direct release was ordered because the factual claim about existing structures was disputed, but the landowners were left free to seek consideration by the State in accordance with law, since possession had not been taken.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>