https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196745 A belated writ challenge to land acquisition was barred by laches because it was brought more than three decades after the acquisition notifications, and no satisfactory explanation for the delay was shown. The Court treated discretionary relief under Article 226 as unavailable in such circumstances. It also held that acquired land vests in the State free from encumbrances, and that administrative directions in the Land Administration Manual and Standing Order 28 are only enabling arrangements and do not confer a legal right to reconveyance. Once the public purpose is achieved, the land may be used for another public purpose, so no mandamus for return of the land lay. en-us Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:26:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196745 A belated writ challenge to land acquisition was barred by laches because it was brought more than three decades after the acquisition notifications, and no satisfactory explanation for the delay was shown. The Court treated discretionary relief under Article 226 as unavailable in such circumstances. It also held that acquired land vests in the State free from encumbrances, and that administrative directions in the Land Administration Manual and Standing Order 28 are only enabling arrangements and do not confer a legal right to reconveyance. Once the public purpose is achieved, the land may be used for another public purpose, so no mandamus for return of the land lay. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196745