https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183285 The proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was treated as mandatory because it bars a declaration after one year from publication of the Section 4 notification. The earlier quashing of the first Section 6 notification did not suspend or extend that statutory limit, so a fresh declaration had to comply with the same time constraint. Counsel's concession could not validate an act prohibited by statute, since there can be no estoppel against a mandatory provision. The prior High Court observations were treated as per incuriam because the limitation issue under the proviso had not been specifically considered. The second Section 6 notification was therefore invalid as time-barred. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Sep 2023 16:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183285 The proviso to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was treated as mandatory because it bars a declaration after one year from publication of the Section 4 notification. The earlier quashing of the first Section 6 notification did not suspend or extend that statutory limit, so a fresh declaration had to comply with the same time constraint. Counsel's concession could not validate an act prohibited by statute, since there can be no estoppel against a mandatory provision. The prior High Court observations were treated as per incuriam because the limitation issue under the proviso had not been specifically considered. The second Section 6 notification was therefore invalid as time-barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183285