<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (8) TMI 691 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309000</link>
    <description>A notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in the name of a dead recorded owner was not automatically void, because the acquisition scheme requires notice to persons interested at different stages and does not compel the authority to make a roving enquiry into every owner&#039;s survival unless the death is brought to its notice. The Court distinguished acquisition proceedings from strict proceedings against dead persons and noted that such defect does not by itself nullify the process. Subsequent purchasers who bought the plots after the award and taking of possession were not entitled to challenge the acquisition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Aug 2023 13:08:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=721775" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 691 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309000</link>
      <description>A notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in the name of a dead recorded owner was not automatically void, because the acquisition scheme requires notice to persons interested at different stages and does not compel the authority to make a roving enquiry into every owner&#039;s survival unless the death is brought to its notice. The Court distinguished acquisition proceedings from strict proceedings against dead persons and noted that such defect does not by itself nullify the process. Subsequent purchasers who bought the plots after the award and taking of possession were not entitled to challenge the acquisition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309000</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>