https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287634 In computing the three-year period under the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the period during which acquisition proceedings were stayed by court order is excluded on the equitable principle that an act of court should prejudice no one. The Madras HC held that the proviso does not expressly prohibit exclusion of such stay periods, and that a declaration initially made within time remains legally effective even if later quashed, because the statutory requirement had already been met. The writ period and stay order were therefore to be left out of the limitation calculation, and a declaration made within the extended time was treated as valid. en-us Fri, 22 Jun 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Apr 2020 16:07:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287634 In computing the three-year period under the first proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the period during which acquisition proceedings were stayed by court order is excluded on the equitable principle that an act of court should prejudice no one. The Madras HC held that the proviso does not expressly prohibit exclusion of such stay periods, and that a declaration initially made within time remains legally effective even if later quashed, because the statutory requirement had already been met. The writ period and stay order were therefore to be left out of the limitation calculation, and a declaration made within the extended time was treated as valid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Jun 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287634