<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (2) TMI 448 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182799</link>
    <description>The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act&#039;s acquisition scheme was held to operate independently of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because the special statute incorporated only selected provisions of the general law. Later amendments to the Land Acquisition Act did not automatically apply. The specific saving mechanism in Section 126(4) allowed a fresh declaration where the original declaration was delayed or time had expired, and that delay did not defeat the acquisition. Accordingly, the notification did not lapse, the fresh declaration was valid, and the proceedings were not time-barred on the basis of Section 11-A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2016 18:02:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428845" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 448 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182799</link>
      <description>The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act&#039;s acquisition scheme was held to operate independently of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because the special statute incorporated only selected provisions of the general law. Later amendments to the Land Acquisition Act did not automatically apply. The specific saving mechanism in Section 126(4) allowed a fresh declaration where the original declaration was delayed or time had expired, and that delay did not defeat the acquisition. Accordingly, the notification did not lapse, the fresh declaration was valid, and the proceedings were not time-barred on the basis of Section 11-A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>