https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184141 Acquisition proceedings were not invalid merely because notices were not personally served on subsequent purchasers whose names had not been mutated in the revenue records; service on the original owner was treated as sufficient for the statutory stage in question. Publication of the Section 4(1) notification and the Section 6 declaration satisfied the statutory requirement, and a post-award purchaser could not defeat the acquisition on that basis. Later disinclination by the beneficiary did not render the acquisition ineffective in the absence of a notification under Section 48(1) withdrawing from acquisition, so the challenge to quash the acquisition failed. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:39:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184141 Acquisition proceedings were not invalid merely because notices were not personally served on subsequent purchasers whose names had not been mutated in the revenue records; service on the original owner was treated as sufficient for the statutory stage in question. Publication of the Section 4(1) notification and the Section 6 declaration satisfied the statutory requirement, and a post-award purchaser could not defeat the acquisition on that basis. Later disinclination by the beneficiary did not render the acquisition ineffective in the absence of a notification under Section 48(1) withdrawing from acquisition, so the challenge to quash the acquisition failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 09 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184141