<?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>2024 (12) TMI 1013 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763433</link>
    <description>Disposal of government land for a proposed cooperative housing society must follow the prescribed allotment procedure, including disclosure of the specific land sought, scrutiny of eligibility criteria, and transparent selection where public notice or competitive consideration is required. Repeated changes in membership and a shift in the project objective undermined the claimed eligibility basis, and the process lacked the transparency required for public land allotment. A discretionary grant of a different plot was also unsustainable because the record did not disclose reasons for departing from the normal procedure or for preferring one society over others. The grant was quashed for want of procedural fairness, transparency, and compliance with the governing framework.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1013 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763433</link>
      <description>Disposal of government land for a proposed cooperative housing society must follow the prescribed allotment procedure, including disclosure of the specific land sought, scrutiny of eligibility criteria, and transparent selection where public notice or competitive consideration is required. Repeated changes in membership and a shift in the project objective undermined the claimed eligibility basis, and the process lacked the transparency required for public land allotment. A discretionary grant of a different plot was also unsustainable because the record did not disclose reasons for departing from the normal procedure or for preferring one society over others. The grant was quashed for want of procedural fairness, transparency, and compliance with the governing framework.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>