https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759071 The Scheme of Arrangement did not transfer the subject land or the pending acquisition liability to the Appellant because the acquisition proceedings had begun before the effective date and the liability remained with JAL under the carved-out liabilities clause. The supplementary compensation was therefore payable by JAL, not the Appellant, and the High Court's contrary fastening of liability was unsustainable. Section 101 of the 2013 Act could not be invoked to return the land, as it was being used as a safety zone and was not unutilised for five years. The State was required to ensure payment of supplementary compensation first and could recover it from JAL. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Sep 2024 09:05:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759071 The Scheme of Arrangement did not transfer the subject land or the pending acquisition liability to the Appellant because the acquisition proceedings had begun before the effective date and the liability remained with JAL under the carved-out liabilities clause. The supplementary compensation was therefore payable by JAL, not the Appellant, and the High Court's contrary fastening of liability was unsustainable. Section 101 of the 2013 Act could not be invoked to return the land, as it was being used as a safety zone and was not unutilised for five years. The State was required to ensure payment of supplementary compensation first and could recover it from JAL. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759071