<?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>2012 (9) TMI 1232 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305812</link>
    <description>Open space reservation land that had been earmarked for a layout was held to have already been handed over to the local body on the basis of official records and municipal possession, and the absence of a registered conveyance did not negate that transfer. For layouts exceeding 10,000 sq. meters, the development control regime required reservation of 10% of the area as open space and did not permit charges in lieu of that reservation; such charges were confined to layouts between 3,000 sq. meters and 10,000 sq. meters. Because the required land had already been surrendered, the additional OSR charge demand had no legal basis and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2022 10:58:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699832" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 1232 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305812</link>
      <description>Open space reservation land that had been earmarked for a layout was held to have already been handed over to the local body on the basis of official records and municipal possession, and the absence of a registered conveyance did not negate that transfer. For layouts exceeding 10,000 sq. meters, the development control regime required reservation of 10% of the area as open space and did not permit charges in lieu of that reservation; such charges were confined to layouts between 3,000 sq. meters and 10,000 sq. meters. Because the required land had already been surrendered, the additional OSR charge demand had no legal basis and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>