https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184094 In a planned urban development acquisition, administrative delay between the section 4 notification and the section 6 declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not by itself invalidate the State's satisfaction under sections 17(1) and 17(4) or make the dispensing with the section 5-A inquiry illegal, where the urgency was supported by acquisition records and no mala fides were shown. The presence of some structures on isolated portions of a substantially larger tract also did not prevent resort to urgency powers for the whole acquisition, particularly where the land was acquired for planned development and the statutory scheme extended to such land. The acquisition was therefore sustained. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:27:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184094 In a planned urban development acquisition, administrative delay between the section 4 notification and the section 6 declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not by itself invalidate the State's satisfaction under sections 17(1) and 17(4) or make the dispensing with the section 5-A inquiry illegal, where the urgency was supported by acquisition records and no mala fides were shown. The presence of some structures on isolated portions of a substantially larger tract also did not prevent resort to urgency powers for the whole acquisition, particularly where the land was acquired for planned development and the statutory scheme extended to such land. The acquisition was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184094