https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307588 Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was held not to exclude natural justice, so a beneficiary substantially involved in the acquisition process was entitled to notice and hearing before withdrawal. Because the beneficiary had deposited acquisition costs and faced prejudice from the withdrawal, the impugned notification was invalid for breach of natural justice. The stated grounds for withdrawal also failed: objections to public purpose and the society's status had already been rejected, the Section 6 declaration had become conclusive evidence of public purpose, and the Government could not justify the order with new affidavit reasons. The withdrawal was therefore quashed. en-us Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:29:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307588 Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was held not to exclude natural justice, so a beneficiary substantially involved in the acquisition process was entitled to notice and hearing before withdrawal. Because the beneficiary had deposited acquisition costs and faced prejudice from the withdrawal, the impugned notification was invalid for breach of natural justice. The stated grounds for withdrawal also failed: objections to public purpose and the society's status had already been rejected, the Section 6 declaration had become conclusive evidence of public purpose, and the Government could not justify the order with new affidavit reasons. The withdrawal was therefore quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307588