<?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>1992 (2) TMI 374 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278239</link>
    <description>A land acquisition notification under Section 4 must identify the land and locality with reasonable clarity so affected owners can know whether their property is included and raise objections. Where the description is cryptic, lacks khasra numbers or precise locality, the defect is not cured by fuller particulars in the later Section 6 declaration; the notification is invalid and the acquisition is vitiated. The public purpose stated must also be sufficiently definite. A bare description such as &quot;residential&quot; was treated as too vague, and inconsistency between the request and the notifications indicated non-application of mind, rendering the acquisition bad in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2019 12:14:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=553757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (2) TMI 374 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278239</link>
      <description>A land acquisition notification under Section 4 must identify the land and locality with reasonable clarity so affected owners can know whether their property is included and raise objections. Where the description is cryptic, lacks khasra numbers or precise locality, the defect is not cured by fuller particulars in the later Section 6 declaration; the notification is invalid and the acquisition is vitiated. The public purpose stated must also be sufficiently definite. A bare description such as &quot;residential&quot; was treated as too vague, and inconsistency between the request and the notifications indicated non-application of mind, rendering the acquisition bad in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>