https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199387 A belated challenge to land acquisition notifications was rejected on laches, as the writ petition was filed nearly two and a half years after the notification, no convincing explanation for the delay was offered, and official acts were presumed regular. The Court also found no mala fides or clear legal infirmity in the invocation of urgency under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with Section 5-A excluded; disputed title and factual assertions, together with the mere delay in starting construction, did not justify interference under Article 226. The acquisition challenge therefore failed on delay and on merits. en-us Fri, 06 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Feb 2018 16:01:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199387 A belated challenge to land acquisition notifications was rejected on laches, as the writ petition was filed nearly two and a half years after the notification, no convincing explanation for the delay was offered, and official acts were presumed regular. The Court also found no mala fides or clear legal infirmity in the invocation of urgency under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with Section 5-A excluded; disputed title and factual assertions, together with the mere delay in starting construction, did not justify interference under Article 226. The acquisition challenge therefore failed on delay and on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Apr 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199387