https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16653 A compulsory purchase order under Chapter XX-C could not stand because the intending seller and purchaser were not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, which had to be read into the scheme before exercise of section 269UD(1) powers; the order was therefore quashed. Revesting under section 269UH was not attracted, as the record showed payment of consideration after the stay was vacated, so there was no failure of payment causing abrogation. The two-month period under the proviso to section 269UD(1) was held to run from the date of the High Court judgment disposing of the pending matter, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 13 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:07:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16653 A compulsory purchase order under Chapter XX-C could not stand because the intending seller and purchaser were not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing, which had to be read into the scheme before exercise of section 269UD(1) powers; the order was therefore quashed. Revesting under section 269UH was not attracted, as the record showed payment of consideration after the stay was vacated, so there was no failure of payment causing abrogation. The two-month period under the proviso to section 269UD(1) was held to run from the date of the High Court judgment disposing of the pending matter, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16653