<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1966 (8) TMI 66 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172335</link>
    <description>Compulsory acquisition powers are to be strictly construed, and the requirement to publish the substance of the preliminary notification at convenient places in the locality operates as a mandatory condition precedent to lawful entry and survey. The notice under the preliminary stage serves to inform the owner before entry, while the later notice under the separate provision serves a different purpose by disclosing particulars of the land proposed for acquisition. Because the statutory language and consequences of non-compliance showed the notice requirement was not merely directory, failure to comply invalidated the acquisition proceedings and the awards founded on them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:12:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (8) TMI 66 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172335</link>
      <description>Compulsory acquisition powers are to be strictly construed, and the requirement to publish the substance of the preliminary notification at convenient places in the locality operates as a mandatory condition precedent to lawful entry and survey. The notice under the preliminary stage serves to inform the owner before entry, while the later notice under the separate provision serves a different purpose by disclosing particulars of the land proposed for acquisition. Because the statutory language and consequences of non-compliance showed the notice requirement was not merely directory, failure to comply invalidated the acquisition proceedings and the awards founded on them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>