https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209528 Repeated challenges to the same land acquisition were treated as barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata, and abuse of process where the same foundational objections had already been finally rejected in earlier litigation. The Court also held that acquisition under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act follows a self-contained statutory scheme with vesting occurring by operation of law on publication of the declaration, so the lapse provision in Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act did not apply and the acquisition did not lapse for want of an award within two years. en-us Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Nov 2025 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209528 Repeated challenges to the same land acquisition were treated as barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata, and abuse of process where the same foundational objections had already been finally rejected in earlier litigation. The Court also held that acquisition under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act follows a self-contained statutory scheme with vesting occurring by operation of law on publication of the declaration, so the lapse provision in Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act did not apply and the acquisition did not lapse for want of an award within two years. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209528