https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182240 The Supreme Court treated the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 as a self-contained code for requisition, acquisition and compensation, distinct from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 28A of the 1894 Act could not be imported by implication to reopen compensation under the 1952 Act, because a substantive right to redetermine compensation must be expressly conferred by statute. Agreements fixing compensation under Section 8(1)(a) of the 1952 Act were contractual in nature and could not be unilaterally reopened merely because later awards granted higher compensation to other landowners. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 May 2016 17:31:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182240 The Supreme Court treated the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 as a self-contained code for requisition, acquisition and compensation, distinct from the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 28A of the 1894 Act could not be imported by implication to reopen compensation under the 1952 Act, because a substantive right to redetermine compensation must be expressly conferred by statute. Agreements fixing compensation under Section 8(1)(a) of the 1952 Act were contractual in nature and could not be unilaterally reopened merely because later awards granted higher compensation to other landowners. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182240