https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171892 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether a pleaded fact forms an integral part of the cause of action. In a writ challenge to a Rajasthan acquisition notification, mere service of notice under Section 52(2) at the petitioner's Calcutta office was not sufficient, because the acquisition proceedings and the impugned notification operated in Rajasthan where the land was situated. Since the notice was not necessary to sustain the relief claimed, it did not confer jurisdiction on the Calcutta High Court. The appropriate forum was the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, for challenge to the acquisition action. en-us Mon, 08 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jul 2017 11:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171892 Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether a pleaded fact forms an integral part of the cause of action. In a writ challenge to a Rajasthan acquisition notification, mere service of notice under Section 52(2) at the petitioner's Calcutta office was not sufficient, because the acquisition proceedings and the impugned notification operated in Rajasthan where the land was situated. Since the notice was not necessary to sustain the relief claimed, it did not confer jurisdiction on the Calcutta High Court. The appropriate forum was the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, for challenge to the acquisition action. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171892