https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193055 A writ petition concerning retained acquired land was not rejected for disputed facts or delay, because the record showed the land belonged to the petitioner, possession had been taken by the State, and no compensation had been determined or paid. The Court treated limitation as inapplicable to this type of writ, though delay could be considered discretionarily, and accepted the explanation for delay. It held that the State cannot continue to hold property without lawful acquisition or compensation, and mandamus may direct either lawful determination and payment of compensation or restoration of possession. If acquisition is regularised, compensation must be assessed with the relevant statutory additions. en-us Wed, 02 Apr 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:38:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193055 A writ petition concerning retained acquired land was not rejected for disputed facts or delay, because the record showed the land belonged to the petitioner, possession had been taken by the State, and no compensation had been determined or paid. The Court treated limitation as inapplicable to this type of writ, though delay could be considered discretionarily, and accepted the explanation for delay. It held that the State cannot continue to hold property without lawful acquisition or compensation, and mandamus may direct either lawful determination and payment of compensation or restoration of possession. If acquisition is regularised, compensation must be assessed with the relevant statutory additions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Apr 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193055