https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172457 A private settlement over one notified parcel did not authorise the Land Acquisition Officer to omit that land from the award without a Section 48 denotification, because once Sections 4 and 6 notifications issue the statutory acquisition process must proceed. That irregularity, however, did not by itself vitiate acquisition of the remaining land. The challenge based on absence of public purpose and mala fides also failed, as the record did not show that the acquisition was initiated at private behest or that the stated public purpose was unreal. Writ interference under Article 226 was therefore unwarranted. en-us Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2017 16:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172457 A private settlement over one notified parcel did not authorise the Land Acquisition Officer to omit that land from the award without a Section 48 denotification, because once Sections 4 and 6 notifications issue the statutory acquisition process must proceed. That irregularity, however, did not by itself vitiate acquisition of the remaining land. The challenge based on absence of public purpose and mala fides also failed, as the record did not show that the acquisition was initiated at private behest or that the stated public purpose was unreal. Writ interference under Article 226 was therefore unwarranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172457