https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308415 A transferee who acquired an allotment through amalgamation, demerger or similar transfer without an enforceable lease right lacked locus to invoke Article 226. The Court also upheld the 2010 and 2014 Land Policy guidelines and the 13.11.2014 TAMP order, holding that they were framed within the statutory framework and were not arbitrary. However, the 25.3.2011 TAMP order could not operate retrospectively from July 1999 because subordinate legislation needs clear authority for retrospective effect; it was sustained only for the permissible 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013 period. Claims for lease renewal were rejected because renewal is not automatic and depends on policy, lease terms and port requirements. en-us Fri, 10 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jun 2023 20:57:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308415 A transferee who acquired an allotment through amalgamation, demerger or similar transfer without an enforceable lease right lacked locus to invoke Article 226. The Court also upheld the 2010 and 2014 Land Policy guidelines and the 13.11.2014 TAMP order, holding that they were framed within the statutory framework and were not arbitrary. However, the 25.3.2011 TAMP order could not operate retrospectively from July 1999 because subordinate legislation needs clear authority for retrospective effect; it was sustained only for the permissible 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013 period. Claims for lease renewal were rejected because renewal is not automatic and depends on policy, lease terms and port requirements. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308415