<?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 (8) TMI 1027 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313255</link>
    <description>Executive directions on the Lutyens&#039; Bungalow Zone, when issued under the Union&#039;s executive power and later incorporated into the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan, acquired binding force and had to be followed by the NDMC when sanctioning building plans. Because the applicable statutory scheme barred approval of plans contrary to approved development norms, refusal of a non-conforming plan was lawful. A deemed sanction could not arise where the plans had been examined and rejected for violating LBZ requirements, and the High Court could not direct endorsement of sanction contrary to those governing provisions. The appeals were allowed and the parties were left free to submit revised plans conforming to the LBZ guidelines.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2024 11:47:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=748965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 1027 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313255</link>
      <description>Executive directions on the Lutyens&#039; Bungalow Zone, when issued under the Union&#039;s executive power and later incorporated into the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan, acquired binding force and had to be followed by the NDMC when sanctioning building plans. Because the applicable statutory scheme barred approval of plans contrary to approved development norms, refusal of a non-conforming plan was lawful. A deemed sanction could not arise where the plans had been examined and rejected for violating LBZ requirements, and the High Court could not direct endorsement of sanction contrary to those governing provisions. The appeals were allowed and the parties were left free to submit revised plans conforming to the LBZ guidelines.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313255</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>