<?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>1976 (9) TMI 182 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189653</link>
    <description>Under a statute incorporating the Land Acquisition Act procedure, the preliminary notification stage is treated as equivalent to section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, while the declaration stage corresponds to section 6. The Court held that compensation must be assessed by the procedure in force when the acquisition proceedings are taken forward, and no vested right exists in an earlier procedural date unless the special statute says otherwise. Market value was therefore to be determined with reference to the date of the section 16 notification, not the section 18 declaration, and the contrary High Court view was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:16:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (9) TMI 182 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189653</link>
      <description>Under a statute incorporating the Land Acquisition Act procedure, the preliminary notification stage is treated as equivalent to section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, while the declaration stage corresponds to section 6. The Court held that compensation must be assessed by the procedure in force when the acquisition proceedings are taken forward, and no vested right exists in an earlier procedural date unless the special statute says otherwise. Market value was therefore to be determined with reference to the date of the section 16 notification, not the section 18 declaration, and the contrary High Court view was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>