https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170081 The first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as substituted by the 1984 amendment, was construed broadly so that the Explanation requiring exclusion of the period during which proceedings pursuant to a Section 4 notification were stayed by court order applied to all notifications issued between 29 January 1967 and the commencement of the amendment. The Court held that the stay period had to be excluded when computing the time limit for making the Section 6 declaration, because the statutory scheme was intended to prevent court-ordered delay from defeating acquisition proceedings. The argument that a vested right arose on expiry of the earlier three-year period was rejected, and the declarations issued in 1985 and 1986 were held to be within time. en-us Wed, 27 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Feb 2026 10:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170081 The first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as substituted by the 1984 amendment, was construed broadly so that the Explanation requiring exclusion of the period during which proceedings pursuant to a Section 4 notification were stayed by court order applied to all notifications issued between 29 January 1967 and the commencement of the amendment. The Court held that the stay period had to be excluded when computing the time limit for making the Section 6 declaration, because the statutory scheme was intended to prevent court-ordered delay from defeating acquisition proceedings. The argument that a vested right arose on expiry of the earlier three-year period was rejected, and the declarations issued in 1985 and 1986 were held to be within time. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170081