https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303830 Acquisition of land for the Board under the Land Acquisition Act was not invalid merely because the special scheme procedure in the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act was not followed, since that Act governed acquisitions made by the Board for its own purposes, not a Government acquisition for a public purpose connected with the scheme. By contrast, the State could not dispense with the section 5-A objections procedure by invoking section 17(4) where the land fell under section 17(1-A), because exclusion of objections must be expressly authorised and cannot be implied from the accelerated-possession provisions. The section 6 declaration was therefore invalid to that extent, and the notifications were struck down insofar as they excluded section 5-A. en-us Fri, 26 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Aug 2022 18:26:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303830 Acquisition of land for the Board under the Land Acquisition Act was not invalid merely because the special scheme procedure in the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act was not followed, since that Act governed acquisitions made by the Board for its own purposes, not a Government acquisition for a public purpose connected with the scheme. By contrast, the State could not dispense with the section 5-A objections procedure by invoking section 17(4) where the land fell under section 17(1-A), because exclusion of objections must be expressly authorised and cannot be implied from the accelerated-possession provisions. The section 6 declaration was therefore invalid to that extent, and the notifications were struck down insofar as they excluded section 5-A. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 26 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303830