<?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>1992 (5) TMI 205 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313253</link>
    <description>Building plans submitted before the 24 December 1982 restrictions did not create an enforceable right to construct because the Cantonment Board&#039;s sanction was conditional on conversion of the land into freehold and payment of conversion charges. The approval was therefore not unconditional or effective until those conditions were met, and the conversion requirement was not severable from the sanction. The Court also treated the later building restrictions and bye-laws as valid planning controls, and held that any fresh sanction had to comply with the regulations in force at the time of sanction. The challenge to rejection of the plans therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2024 10:53:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=748963" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (5) TMI 205 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313253</link>
      <description>Building plans submitted before the 24 December 1982 restrictions did not create an enforceable right to construct because the Cantonment Board&#039;s sanction was conditional on conversion of the land into freehold and payment of conversion charges. The approval was therefore not unconditional or effective until those conditions were met, and the conversion requirement was not severable from the sanction. The Court also treated the later building restrictions and bye-laws as valid planning controls, and held that any fresh sanction had to comply with the regulations in force at the time of sanction. The challenge to rejection of the plans therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313253</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>