https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183602 Subsequent purchasers of land were not entitled to individual notice under section 17(5) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 where they bought after publication of the acquisition notification and their names were not in the relevant assessment or revenue records at the material time; non-service of notice on them did not invalidate the acquisition. The acquisition framework was treated as a complete code, and civil court jurisdiction was held to be impliedly barred for challenging the validity of acquisition notifications and declarations. Such objections lay in writ jurisdiction, not by civil suit, so the suit challenging the acquisition proceedings was not maintainable and the dismissal of the suits was restored. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183602 Subsequent purchasers of land were not entitled to individual notice under section 17(5) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 where they bought after publication of the acquisition notification and their names were not in the relevant assessment or revenue records at the material time; non-service of notice on them did not invalidate the acquisition. The acquisition framework was treated as a complete code, and civil court jurisdiction was held to be impliedly barred for challenging the validity of acquisition notifications and declarations. Such objections lay in writ jurisdiction, not by civil suit, so the suit challenging the acquisition proceedings was not maintainable and the dismissal of the suits was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183602