https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221821 A prior Supreme Court decision on the same acquisition notification and compensation issue bound the later appeals under Article 141. Because the earlier ruling had already examined the valuation evidence and upheld the Land Acquisition Officer's award, the challenge to compensation could not be reopened. The objections based on res judicata, irregular listing, absence of counsel, and pending substitution applications did not justify remand, since any remand would have been only formal and could not alter the settled issue. The compensation challenge therefore failed, the High Court's disposal was left undisturbed, and recovery of amounts already paid was restrained. en-us Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221821 A prior Supreme Court decision on the same acquisition notification and compensation issue bound the later appeals under Article 141. Because the earlier ruling had already examined the valuation evidence and upheld the Land Acquisition Officer's award, the challenge to compensation could not be reopened. The objections based on res judicata, irregular listing, absence of counsel, and pending substitution applications did not justify remand, since any remand would have been only formal and could not alter the settled issue. The compensation challenge therefore failed, the High Court's disposal was left undisturbed, and recovery of amounts already paid was restrained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221821