https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184099 The dispute concerned whether 2.18 acres in Survey Nos. 41/1 and 41/2 could be excluded from acquisition and whether the acquisition should instead proceed against Plot No. 41/4. The record indicated that the land was needed for convenient enjoyment of the corporation's residence and staff quarters, and that there had been prior administrative consultation for substitution of the acquisition site. On that basis, the request to delete the adjoining 2.18 acres was treated as justified, and the State was directed to proceed against Plot No. 41/4 instead. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:22:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184099 The dispute concerned whether 2.18 acres in Survey Nos. 41/1 and 41/2 could be excluded from acquisition and whether the acquisition should instead proceed against Plot No. 41/4. The record indicated that the land was needed for convenient enjoyment of the corporation's residence and staff quarters, and that there had been prior administrative consultation for substitution of the acquisition site. On that basis, the request to delete the adjoining 2.18 acres was treated as justified, and the State was directed to proceed against Plot No. 41/4 instead. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184099