https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181876 Urgency acquisition under Section 17 was treated as complete once possession was taken, so Section 11A did not cause lapse and the notifications remained valid. A purchaser after publication of the Section 4(1) notification could not defeat the acquisition, as the post-notification transfer conveyed no title against the State, though compensation remained payable to the person legally entitled under the Act. For valuation, the basic valuation register used for stamp duty was rejected as a basis for market value; compensation had to be fixed by reference to the prevailing market value on the date of the Section 4(1) notification, with appropriate development deductions. The court reassessed compensation on that basis, including solatium and interest. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181876 Urgency acquisition under Section 17 was treated as complete once possession was taken, so Section 11A did not cause lapse and the notifications remained valid. A purchaser after publication of the Section 4(1) notification could not defeat the acquisition, as the post-notification transfer conveyed no title against the State, though compensation remained payable to the person legally entitled under the Act. For valuation, the basic valuation register used for stamp duty was rejected as a basis for market value; compensation had to be fixed by reference to the prevailing market value on the date of the Section 4(1) notification, with appropriate development deductions. The court reassessed compensation on that basis, including solatium and interest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181876