Search Results for "Indore Municipal Act"

151 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 151 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Land Acquisition Case, Reversing High Court's Lapse Finding. Acquisition Proceedings Do Not Lapse Under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act When Possession Was Taken, Despite Non-Payment of Compensation Due to Title Dispute.

The Supreme Court heard two appeals arising from a Delhi High Court order concerning land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1989-1992. The responde...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Land Acquisition Case, Reversing High Court's Lapse Declaration. Acquisition Does Not Lapse Under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 as Possession Was Taken, Following Constitution Bench Interpretation Overruling Earlier Precedent.

The dispute concerned a land acquisition matter where the Land Acquisition Collector and another appellant challenged the Delhi High Court's judgment ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Land Acquisition Case, Reversing High Court's Deemed Lapse Declaration. Acquisition Proceedings Do Not Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as Possession Was Taken, Despite Non-Payment of Compensation, Following Indore Development Authority Constitution Bench Ruling.

The dispute arose from a land acquisition matter where the Land and Building Department and Land Acquisition Collector appealed against a High Court j...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Government Appeal Against Declaration of Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Possession Taken and Compensation Deposited Preclude Deemed Lapse.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi and another against the judgment of the Delhi High Court. The High Court ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitions Challenging Unilateral Modification of Development Control Regulations by State. Held that DCRs are statutory and cannot be altered without following due process under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by D B Realty Limited and Salim Balwa (WP No.366 of 2014) and Savita Homemakers LLP and Akkshay Jain (W...