<?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>2002 (3) TMI 44 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40335</link>
    <description>The proviso to section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 fixes a mandatory time limit for issuing a declaration with reference to the section 4(1) notification date, and only the period expressly excluded by Explanation 1, namely a court-ordered stay of proceedings under that notification, can be ignored. A fresh section 6 declaration cannot be issued after that period merely because an earlier declaration was quashed, and the court cannot supply an omitted exception or extend time on grounds of convenience. The contrary line of authority was overruled, though the ruling was applied prospectively to protect cases where awards had already been made and compensation paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 44 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40335</link>
      <description>The proviso to section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 fixes a mandatory time limit for issuing a declaration with reference to the section 4(1) notification date, and only the period expressly excluded by Explanation 1, namely a court-ordered stay of proceedings under that notification, can be ignored. A fresh section 6 declaration cannot be issued after that period merely because an earlier declaration was quashed, and the court cannot supply an omitted exception or extend time on grounds of convenience. The contrary line of authority was overruled, though the ruling was applied prospectively to protect cases where awards had already been made and compensation paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>