https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185260 When the statutory period for making a Section 6 declaration had expired and the earlier declaration had already been quashed by the High Court without challenge, the State could not revive the acquisition by relying on the same preliminary notification. The finality of the unchallenged quashing order, coupled with expiry of the Tamil Nadu amendment period, meant the power to proceed under the existing Section 4(1) notification was no longer available. The acquisition was therefore liable to be quashed, though the State remained free to begin fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with law if public interest required. en-us Tue, 21 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 15:12:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185260 When the statutory period for making a Section 6 declaration had expired and the earlier declaration had already been quashed by the High Court without challenge, the State could not revive the acquisition by relying on the same preliminary notification. The finality of the unchallenged quashing order, coupled with expiry of the Tamil Nadu amendment period, meant the power to proceed under the existing Section 4(1) notification was no longer available. The acquisition was therefore liable to be quashed, though the State remained free to begin fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with law if public interest required. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185260