<?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>1993 (3) TMI 106 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43521</link>
    <description>Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was held to permit acquisition even without a Chapter V scheme framed by the Trust, because the statutory power extended to land needed for improvement or other purposes under the Act. The acquisition notice was also found valid: the Government had applied its mind, and the stated purposes for development and construction were sufficiently specified at the notification stage. The acquisition did not lapse for delay in making the award, because the period during which the proceedings were stayed by court order was excluded from limitation. The acquisition proceedings and notifications were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2016 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82050" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (3) TMI 106 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43521</link>
      <description>Section 52 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 was held to permit acquisition even without a Chapter V scheme framed by the Trust, because the statutory power extended to land needed for improvement or other purposes under the Act. The acquisition notice was also found valid: the Government had applied its mind, and the stated purposes for development and construction were sufficiently specified at the notification stage. The acquisition did not lapse for delay in making the award, because the period during which the proceedings were stayed by court order was excluded from limitation. The acquisition proceedings and notifications were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>