<?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 (5) TMI 1552 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461610</link>
    <description>Delay and laches did not bar constitutional relief where land acquired for a public purpose remained uncompensated for years and the grievance reflected a continuing cause of action. Article 300-A protects property against deprivation otherwise than by authority of law and payment of compensation, so the State&#039;s failure to determine and pay compensation required judicial scrutiny. The High Court should have examined why compensation was never fixed at acquisition and how any later valuation was made, rather than directing a fresh application. The rejection of the writ petition on delay was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:54:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=815097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1552 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461610</link>
      <description>Delay and laches did not bar constitutional relief where land acquired for a public purpose remained uncompensated for years and the grievance reflected a continuing cause of action. Article 300-A protects property against deprivation otherwise than by authority of law and payment of compensation, so the State&#039;s failure to determine and pay compensation required judicial scrutiny. The High Court should have examined why compensation was never fixed at acquisition and how any later valuation was made, rather than directing a fresh application. The rejection of the writ petition on delay was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461610</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>