https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174596 Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 was treated as a directory time-limit for executing a sanctioned scheme, not a mandatory condition that would undo a completed acquisition. Because compensation had been paid, possession had been taken, and title had already vested in the Trust, and because the statute did not provide for divestment, annulment, restoration of land, or refund of compensation, non-execution within five years did not invalidate the acquisition. The provision was read with the chapter-level control mechanism, especially Section 55-C, as creating an administrative consequence for default rather than a basis to reopen completed vesting. The contrary Full Bench view was overruled. en-us Wed, 26 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:43:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174596 Section 44-A of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 was treated as a directory time-limit for executing a sanctioned scheme, not a mandatory condition that would undo a completed acquisition. Because compensation had been paid, possession had been taken, and title had already vested in the Trust, and because the statute did not provide for divestment, annulment, restoration of land, or refund of compensation, non-execution within five years did not invalidate the acquisition. The provision was read with the chapter-level control mechanism, especially Section 55-C, as creating an administrative consequence for default rather than a basis to reopen completed vesting. The contrary Full Bench view was overruled. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174596