https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312876 SC allowed appeal regarding land acquisition under KIAD Act. Authorities had bonafide belief that all landowners, including respondents, consented to compensation fixed in September 2005 minutes, but respondents had not actually consented. Single Judge correctly permitted authorities to proceed with acquisition and determine compensation under Section 29(2) KIAD Act through agreement or Deputy Commissioner referral. Division Bench erroneously quashed proceedings citing Section 24 New LA Act lapse provisions. SC held Section 24(2) New LA Act inapplicable since Section 11A Old LA Act doesn't apply to KIAD Act acquisitions. Single Judge's direction to determine compensation restored. en-us Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:43:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312876 SC allowed appeal regarding land acquisition under KIAD Act. Authorities had bonafide belief that all landowners, including respondents, consented to compensation fixed in September 2005 minutes, but respondents had not actually consented. Single Judge correctly permitted authorities to proceed with acquisition and determine compensation under Section 29(2) KIAD Act through agreement or Deputy Commissioner referral. Division Bench erroneously quashed proceedings citing Section 24 New LA Act lapse provisions. SC held Section 24(2) New LA Act inapplicable since Section 11A Old LA Act doesn't apply to KIAD Act acquisitions. Single Judge's direction to determine compensation restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312876