https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184092 In a large planned-development acquisition for Delhi, delay in completing notification, declaration, award, and possession did not by itself invalidate the proceedings, especially where delay was attributable partly to landowners and partly to the scale of the scheme; the acquisition was upheld. Multiple declarations under Section 6 were permissible against different parcels covered by one Section 4 notification. Compensation remained referable to the market value on the date of the Section 4 notification, and Article 31-A did not require valuation at the later date of award or possession. Alleged withdrawal or release was ineffective without a valid governmental denotification, and Section 55 of the Delhi Development Act did not bar the acquisition. Built-up portions and recreational lands were not excluded from acquisition. en-us Fri, 01 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:16:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184092 In a large planned-development acquisition for Delhi, delay in completing notification, declaration, award, and possession did not by itself invalidate the proceedings, especially where delay was attributable partly to landowners and partly to the scale of the scheme; the acquisition was upheld. Multiple declarations under Section 6 were permissible against different parcels covered by one Section 4 notification. Compensation remained referable to the market value on the date of the Section 4 notification, and Article 31-A did not require valuation at the later date of award or possession. Alleged withdrawal or release was ineffective without a valid governmental denotification, and Section 55 of the Delhi Development Act did not bar the acquisition. Built-up portions and recreational lands were not excluded from acquisition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184092