<?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>2025 (4) TMI 1527 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769613</link>
    <description>Residential demolition under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act was found unlawful because proper service of the show-cause notice and demolition order was not effected and a reasonable opportunity to respond was denied. The record showed inadequate attempts at personal service, improper resort to affixation, and failure to use registered post correctly for the initial notice and order. Because the communication reached the occupants only shortly before demolition, the statutory appeal remedy was effectively defeated. The action was therefore contrary to due process, the principles of natural justice, and the constitutional right to shelter under Article 21, with relief and costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 08:33:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=818040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1527 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769613</link>
      <description>Residential demolition under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act was found unlawful because proper service of the show-cause notice and demolition order was not effected and a reasonable opportunity to respond was denied. The record showed inadequate attempts at personal service, improper resort to affixation, and failure to use registered post correctly for the initial notice and order. Because the communication reached the occupants only shortly before demolition, the statutory appeal remedy was effectively defeated. The action was therefore contrary to due process, the principles of natural justice, and the constitutional right to shelter under Article 21, with relief and costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769613</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>