https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284695 Delay between the preliminary notification and the declaration under the land acquisition law did not invalidate the acquisition where the interval was explained by finalisation of the improvement scheme and was not inordinate. A purchaser who bought and constructed after the preliminary notification acquired no lawful title against the State and could not defeat the acquisition once possession was taken. A mistaken exemption granted to another property did not entitle the claimant to equal treatment under Article 14, because equality cannot be based on perpetuating illegality. Mention of the sub-division number in the Section 9 notice was only descriptive and did not vitiate the proceedings. en-us Wed, 01 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Dec 2019 15:32:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284695 Delay between the preliminary notification and the declaration under the land acquisition law did not invalidate the acquisition where the interval was explained by finalisation of the improvement scheme and was not inordinate. A purchaser who bought and constructed after the preliminary notification acquired no lawful title against the State and could not defeat the acquisition once possession was taken. A mistaken exemption granted to another property did not entitle the claimant to equal treatment under Article 14, because equality cannot be based on perpetuating illegality. Mention of the sub-division number in the Section 9 notice was only descriptive and did not vitiate the proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284695