https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172647 A belated writ challenge to a 1952 notification was barred by inordinate delay and laches, especially where no convincing explanation was offered and third-party rights had intervened. The earlier writ petition had already attained finality, so the same challenge and an omitted ground could not be reopened later. The Court also upheld the valid declaration of evacuee property under Section 7 of the 1950 Act and noted that, once acquired under Section 12 of the 1954 Act, the lands vested in the Central Government and ceased to retain evacuee status. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian's order beyond the statute. en-us Thu, 05 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172647 A belated writ challenge to a 1952 notification was barred by inordinate delay and laches, especially where no convincing explanation was offered and third-party rights had intervened. The earlier writ petition had already attained finality, so the same challenge and an omitted ground could not be reopened later. The Court also upheld the valid declaration of evacuee property under Section 7 of the 1950 Act and noted that, once acquired under Section 12 of the 1954 Act, the lands vested in the Central Government and ceased to retain evacuee status. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the Collector-cum-Deputy Custodian's order beyond the statute. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172647