<?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>1989 (1) TMI 360 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187953</link>
    <description>After the 1984 amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, a declaration under Section 6 could be made only after the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1). The Court applied the plain meaning of the amended wording in Section 17(4) and treated the temporal sequence as deliberate, so simultaneous publication of the Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration was impermissible even where urgency provisions were invoked and Section 5-A was dispensed with. The earlier pre-amendment authority allowing same-day publication was distinguished. The same-day declaration was therefore invalid, and the acquisition could not proceed on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:04:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (1) TMI 360 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187953</link>
      <description>After the 1984 amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, a declaration under Section 6 could be made only after the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1). The Court applied the plain meaning of the amended wording in Section 17(4) and treated the temporal sequence as deliberate, so simultaneous publication of the Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration was impermissible even where urgency provisions were invoked and Section 5-A was dispensed with. The earlier pre-amendment authority allowing same-day publication was distinguished. The same-day declaration was therefore invalid, and the acquisition could not proceed on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187953</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>