<?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>1985 (2) TMI 300 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194107</link>
    <description>Compliance with Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 is not a mandatory pre-condition to issue a section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The statutory scheme treats section 4 as the preliminary stage requiring only the government&#039;s view that land is needed or likely to be needed, while Rule 4 and the related reports and agreement under section 41 concern the later section 6 declaration stage. The compensation rule in section 23, which values land by reference to the date of the section 4 notification, also supports this reading. Earlier contrary observations were not treated as binding.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:17:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (2) TMI 300 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194107</link>
      <description>Compliance with Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 is not a mandatory pre-condition to issue a section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The statutory scheme treats section 4 as the preliminary stage requiring only the government&#039;s view that land is needed or likely to be needed, while Rule 4 and the related reports and agreement under section 41 concern the later section 6 declaration stage. The compensation rule in section 23, which values land by reference to the date of the section 4 notification, also supports this reading. Earlier contrary observations were not treated as binding.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>