https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441115 Land acquisition notices issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were treated as valid because the petitioner had not mutated title in its name and the authorities could rely on revenue records standing in the erstwhile owner's name; the encumbrance certificate entry was insufficient to require further enquiry, so the notice challenge failed. The urgency-based acquisition was also upheld because possession was taken and the award was passed within the prescribed period, and once the land vested in the State, post-notification delay or later use for a different public purpose did not furnish a basis to invalidate the proceedings. en-us Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Aug 2023 10:13:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441115 Land acquisition notices issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were treated as valid because the petitioner had not mutated title in its name and the authorities could rely on revenue records standing in the erstwhile owner's name; the encumbrance certificate entry was insufficient to require further enquiry, so the notice challenge failed. The urgency-based acquisition was also upheld because possession was taken and the award was passed within the prescribed period, and once the land vested in the State, post-notification delay or later use for a different public purpose did not furnish a basis to invalidate the proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441115