<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1966 (2) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185143</link>
    <description>Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 5-A and 6 form an integrated scheme requiring the government, after considering objections, to decide once for all which particular land is needed. A Section 4(1) notification is exhausted when a Section 6 declaration is made, so the same notification cannot support successive Section 6 declarations for different portions of the same locality. The special provisions in Sections 17, 48 and 49 did not create any general power to do so; they operated only in their own limited situations. The impugned declaration was therefore invalid, and the point was decided against the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:21:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (2) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185143</link>
      <description>Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 5-A and 6 form an integrated scheme requiring the government, after considering objections, to decide once for all which particular land is needed. A Section 4(1) notification is exhausted when a Section 6 declaration is made, so the same notification cannot support successive Section 6 declarations for different portions of the same locality. The special provisions in Sections 17, 48 and 49 did not create any general power to do so; they operated only in their own limited situations. The impugned declaration was therefore invalid, and the point was decided against the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>