https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312973 Res judicata and constructive res judicata barred the writ petition because earlier challenges to the same acquisition had already been finally adjudicated, and the petitioner also suppressed those proceedings, which defeated the claim in writ jurisdiction. Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law was held inapplicable because it applies only to acquisitions initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereas the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act is a distinct self-contained scheme with its own vesting provisions. The acquisition challenge therefore failed on both procedural and substantive grounds. en-us Tue, 02 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:40:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312973 Res judicata and constructive res judicata barred the writ petition because earlier challenges to the same acquisition had already been finally adjudicated, and the petitioner also suppressed those proceedings, which defeated the claim in writ jurisdiction. Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law was held inapplicable because it applies only to acquisitions initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereas the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act is a distinct self-contained scheme with its own vesting provisions. The acquisition challenge therefore failed on both procedural and substantive grounds. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312973