<?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>2008 (10) TMI 732 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311815</link>
    <description>A demolition order issued under Section 269 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act was invalid because the mandatory safeguard of prior notice and a reasonable opportunity to show cause was not followed. The notices were served in the name of a deceased person, did not properly identify or describe the property, and in substance operated as a final demolition order without a hearing, making the action arbitrary and illegal. The Court also held that only the unauthorised portion of the construction, if any, could be questioned where part of the work was covered by a sanctioned plan, so restoration of the sanctioned construction was justified while the remainder of the demolition action was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 11:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=740098" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 732 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311815</link>
      <description>A demolition order issued under Section 269 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act was invalid because the mandatory safeguard of prior notice and a reasonable opportunity to show cause was not followed. The notices were served in the name of a deceased person, did not properly identify or describe the property, and in substance operated as a final demolition order without a hearing, making the action arbitrary and illegal. The Court also held that only the unauthorised portion of the construction, if any, could be questioned where part of the work was covered by a sanctioned plan, so restoration of the sanctioned construction was justified while the remainder of the demolition action was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>