TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, after the corrigendum restoring the reservation with modification, the entire procedure under Sections 28, 31 and 37 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 had to be re-followed before acquisition could proceed; (ii) Whether the alleged non-service of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 rendered the award invalid.
Issue (i): Whether, after the corrigendum restoring the reservation with modification, the entire procedure under Sections 28, 31 and 37 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 had to be re-followed before acquisition could proceed.
Analysis: Once a notification under Section 4(1) and a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued, the public purpose stood conclusively established. In that situation, and in the light of Section 127(3) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, the relevant plan or scheme is deemed to be suitably varied upon acquisition, and a fresh round of the entire planning procedure was not necessary merely because the reservation was modified by the corrigendum.
Conclusion: The contention that the award was bad for want of re-publication and re-processing under Sections 28, 31 and 37 was rejected and the finding of the High Court on that issue was held to be incorrect.
Issue (ii): Whether the alleged non-service of notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 rendered the award invalid.
Analysis: Failure to serve notice under Section 9 does not by itself invalidate the award. The remedy, where required, lies in seeking a reference for adjudication of compensation and related matters, rather than treating the award as void solely on that ground.
Conclusion: The award was not held invalid merely because notice under Section 9 was said not to have been served.
Final Conclusion: The acquisition proceedings were sustained, the High Court's interference with the award was set aside, and the appellants obtained relief while the respondents were relegated to seek a statutory reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: Once acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have culminated in a Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration, the public purpose becomes conclusive and the planning scheme is deemed varied under the special town-planning statute without requiring re-initiation of the entire planning procedure; procedural defects in Section 9 notice do not, by themselves, invalidate the award.
TaxTMI 
