https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182797 The Supreme Court held that the three-year limitation in the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not apply to acquisition proceedings under Sections 28 and 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. Section 55 and the Schedule were treated as incorporating only the relevant acquisition machinery with modifications, creating a self-contained procedure in which the Adhiniyam's notices replaced the general Act's Section 4 and Section 6 notifications. Later amendments to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act did not automatically apply to the incorporated local statute, and Article 254(2) did not invalidate the State enactment. The challenge to the acquisition on limitation grounds therefore failed, though compensation was directed on the market value prevailing in the year of the analogous declaration. en-us Thu, 12 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2016 17:42:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182797 The Supreme Court held that the three-year limitation in the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not apply to acquisition proceedings under Sections 28 and 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. Section 55 and the Schedule were treated as incorporating only the relevant acquisition machinery with modifications, creating a self-contained procedure in which the Adhiniyam's notices replaced the general Act's Section 4 and Section 6 notifications. Later amendments to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act did not automatically apply to the incorporated local statute, and Article 254(2) did not invalidate the State enactment. The challenge to the acquisition on limitation grounds therefore failed, though compensation was directed on the market value prevailing in the year of the analogous declaration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182797