<?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>1970 (1) TMI 88 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274251</link>
    <description>The Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 was applied with retrospective validating effect through the 1969 Amendment Act. Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and objections under Section 5A were treated as corresponding steps under the 1957 Act by Section 28, while the amendment deemed a Section 7 notification to exist where no Section 5A objection had been filed. Section 3 further validated acquisitions notwithstanding any court judgment, decree or order. The amendment removed the basis for judicial interference, and the acquisition was upheld as valid despite the absence of a separate Section 7 notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2018 12:06:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (1) TMI 88 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274251</link>
      <description>The Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 was applied with retrospective validating effect through the 1969 Amendment Act. Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and objections under Section 5A were treated as corresponding steps under the 1957 Act by Section 28, while the amendment deemed a Section 7 notification to exist where no Section 5A objection had been filed. Section 3 further validated acquisitions notwithstanding any court judgment, decree or order. The amendment removed the basis for judicial interference, and the acquisition was upheld as valid despite the absence of a separate Section 7 notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>