https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283002 Use of older phraseology in a preliminary land acquisition notification under the amended Section 4(1) did not by itself invalidate the proceedings, because the meaningful particulars and objection rights arose through the notice under Section 4(5) and the Section 5-A enquiry; absent demonstrated prejudice, the notification stood. Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, however, was treated as a condition precedent for acquisition for a company, requiring a proper enquiry into bona fides, negotiations, suitability, area and price, with an opportunity of hearing to the landowner. As no such enquiry or hearing was shown, the acquisition was vitiated and the consequential proceedings were set aside. en-us Tue, 05 Oct 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Sep 2019 11:02:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283002 Use of older phraseology in a preliminary land acquisition notification under the amended Section 4(1) did not by itself invalidate the proceedings, because the meaningful particulars and objection rights arose through the notice under Section 4(5) and the Section 5-A enquiry; absent demonstrated prejudice, the notification stood. Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules, however, was treated as a condition precedent for acquisition for a company, requiring a proper enquiry into bona fides, negotiations, suitability, area and price, with an opportunity of hearing to the landowner. As no such enquiry or hearing was shown, the acquisition was vitiated and the consequential proceedings were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Oct 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283002