https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185253 Land acquired for the declared public purpose of planned development of Delhi could not be challenged merely because the work was later undertaken through the International Airport Authority of India; the broad public purpose covered airport development, Chapter VII was not attracted, and the challenge was also barred by constructive res judicata. No enforceable right to alternative industrial land arose, because the record showed only rehabilitation consideration for displaced villagers and no binding governmental decision or scheme for relocation of industrial units. On the Section 11A issue, the SC held that the award had to be made within the statutory period and that no extra exclusion could be imported from the Limitation Act; the acquisition therefore lapsed in that appeal. en-us Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:20:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185253 Land acquired for the declared public purpose of planned development of Delhi could not be challenged merely because the work was later undertaken through the International Airport Authority of India; the broad public purpose covered airport development, Chapter VII was not attracted, and the challenge was also barred by constructive res judicata. No enforceable right to alternative industrial land arose, because the record showed only rehabilitation consideration for displaced villagers and no binding governmental decision or scheme for relocation of industrial units. On the Section 11A issue, the SC held that the award had to be made within the statutory period and that no extra exclusion could be imported from the Limitation Act; the acquisition therefore lapsed in that appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185253