https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194768 Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act did not require the notification to state whether the land was waste or arable, and the urgency power under Section 17(4) was valid on the facts because the land was capable of cultivation and could be treated as arable. Even if there had been a failure to publish the substance of the notification in the locality, writ relief was not warranted after possession had been taken, the land had vested in the State, and the acquisition had attained finality. The acquisition was therefore upheld and the challenge rejected. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Sep 2017 18:15:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194768 Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act did not require the notification to state whether the land was waste or arable, and the urgency power under Section 17(4) was valid on the facts because the land was capable of cultivation and could be treated as arable. Even if there had been a failure to publish the substance of the notification in the locality, writ relief was not warranted after possession had been taken, the land had vested in the State, and the acquisition had attained finality. The acquisition was therefore upheld and the challenge rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194768