https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174999 The Supreme Court found the writ petition filed by the respondent-Parishad to be maintainable due to the unclear alternative remedy of appeal. The appeal under Section 381 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam was deemed not maintainable as required certificates were not obtained. The claimants were entitled to benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Lack of formal notice to the respondent-Parishad regarding land acquisition justified the writ petition. The legality of deeds of assignment was not addressed, and the matter was remitted to the reference tribunal. The Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 4170 of 1999, setting aside the High Court's judgment and directing an expeditious resolution by the tribunal. en-us Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Dec 2015 16:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174999 The Supreme Court found the writ petition filed by the respondent-Parishad to be maintainable due to the unclear alternative remedy of appeal. The appeal under Section 381 of the Mahapalika Adhiniyam was deemed not maintainable as required certificates were not obtained. The claimants were entitled to benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. Lack of formal notice to the respondent-Parishad regarding land acquisition justified the writ petition. The legality of deeds of assignment was not addressed, and the matter was remitted to the reference tribunal. The Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 4170 of 1999, setting aside the High Court's judgment and directing an expeditious resolution by the tribunal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174999