https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170058 Acquisition notifications under the Land Acquisition Act were not invalidated for want of a personal hearing because the objections had in fact been heard through counsel for the society, further objections were invited, and counsel declined to add anything more. The Court treated the allegation of denial of hearing as factually incorrect and held that a writ petitioner must fairly disclose material facts when invoking Article 226. The challenge was also barred by delay and laches because the notifications had been in force for years, the grounds were available from the outset, and the petition followed earlier withdrawals and repeated proceedings. The dismissal of the acquisition challenge was therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 May 2015 17:40:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170058 Acquisition notifications under the Land Acquisition Act were not invalidated for want of a personal hearing because the objections had in fact been heard through counsel for the society, further objections were invited, and counsel declined to add anything more. The Court treated the allegation of denial of hearing as factually incorrect and held that a writ petitioner must fairly disclose material facts when invoking Article 226. The challenge was also barred by delay and laches because the notifications had been in force for years, the grounds were available from the outset, and the petition followed earlier withdrawals and repeated proceedings. The dismissal of the acquisition challenge was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170058