https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157791 Once a Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued, the public purpose became conclusive and, under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, the planning scheme was treated as suitably varied on acquisition; a fresh round of the Sections 28, 31 and 37 procedure was therefore unnecessary after the corrigendum modifying the reservation. Alleged non-service of notice under Section 9 did not by itself invalidate the award, because such a defect does not void the acquisition and the remedy lies in seeking a statutory reference on compensation and related matters. The acquisition proceedings were sustained and the challenge to the award failed. en-us Mon, 09 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157791 Once a Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued, the public purpose became conclusive and, under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, the planning scheme was treated as suitably varied on acquisition; a fresh round of the Sections 28, 31 and 37 procedure was therefore unnecessary after the corrigendum modifying the reservation. Alleged non-service of notice under Section 9 did not by itself invalidate the award, because such a defect does not void the acquisition and the remedy lies in seeking a statutory reference on compensation and related matters. The acquisition proceedings were sustained and the challenge to the award failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157791