https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300670 In a composite land acquisition scheme, the period for issuing a Section 6 declaration was held to be excluded broadly where court-ordered restraint operated in connected matters under Explanation 1 to the first proviso, so declarations issued after that restraint were not invalid on limitation grounds. Relief granted in other writ petitions did not automatically extend to landowners who had not independently secured or pursued their own challenge, and the challenge was also rejected for inordinate delay and laches because the writ petitions were filed long after the cause of action arose. The acquisition notifications and declarations were therefore upheld against these appellants. en-us Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:30:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300670 In a composite land acquisition scheme, the period for issuing a Section 6 declaration was held to be excluded broadly where court-ordered restraint operated in connected matters under Explanation 1 to the first proviso, so declarations issued after that restraint were not invalid on limitation grounds. Relief granted in other writ petitions did not automatically extend to landowners who had not independently secured or pursued their own challenge, and the challenge was also rejected for inordinate delay and laches because the writ petitions were filed long after the cause of action arose. The acquisition notifications and declarations were therefore upheld against these appellants. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300670