<?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>2010 (4) TMI 964 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157691</link>
    <description>A challenge to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be brought within a reasonable time. Once the notification, declaration, award and taking of possession have occurred, the acquisition acquires finality and a belated writ petition may be refused on laches. The Court need not exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction where the claimant has slept over rights and offers no sufficient explanation for the delay, even if the acquisition is alleged to be void. On the stated facts, prior knowledge of the acquisition and the absence of a credible justification for the delay meant the challenge was not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 964 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157691</link>
      <description>A challenge to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be brought within a reasonable time. Once the notification, declaration, award and taking of possession have occurred, the acquisition acquires finality and a belated writ petition may be refused on laches. The Court need not exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction where the claimant has slept over rights and offers no sufficient explanation for the delay, even if the acquisition is alleged to be void. On the stated facts, prior knowledge of the acquisition and the absence of a credible justification for the delay meant the challenge was not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>