https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184110 Land acquisition proceedings were upheld where the contemporaneous record showed compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and service of Section 9 notice; bald allegations and unsupported objections were insufficient to invalidate the acquisition. The challenge was also treated as barred by laches, and possession was found to have been validly taken on the basis of the Panchanama, possession receipt, revenue entries and official correspondence. In a company acquisition, however, withdrawal under Section 48 could not be effected after compliance with Part VII requirements without notice to the beneficiary company, and such withdrawal had to be published in the Official Gazette; internal memos were ineffective. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 May 2017 14:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184110 Land acquisition proceedings were upheld where the contemporaneous record showed compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and service of Section 9 notice; bald allegations and unsupported objections were insufficient to invalidate the acquisition. The challenge was also treated as barred by laches, and possession was found to have been validly taken on the basis of the Panchanama, possession receipt, revenue entries and official correspondence. In a company acquisition, however, withdrawal under Section 48 could not be effected after compliance with Part VII requirements without notice to the beneficiary company, and such withdrawal had to be published in the Official Gazette; internal memos were ineffective. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184110