https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767670 Where land had already vested in the Government upon compulsory acquisition and taking of possession, a later private agreement could not validly require return of part of that land or support an arbitral award enforcing such transfer. The statutory scheme under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 left no scope for withdrawal from acquisition after vesting, and the Board's governing framework did not permit unilateral divesting or re-transfer of compulsorily acquired land. An arrangement intended to undo a completed acquisition and defeat eminent domain for a public purpose was contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. The arbitral award founded on that agreement was therefore invalid and liable to be set aside. en-us Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 11:39:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767670 Where land had already vested in the Government upon compulsory acquisition and taking of possession, a later private agreement could not validly require return of part of that land or support an arbitral award enforcing such transfer. The statutory scheme under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 left no scope for withdrawal from acquisition after vesting, and the Board's governing framework did not permit unilateral divesting or re-transfer of compulsorily acquired land. An arrangement intended to undo a completed acquisition and defeat eminent domain for a public purpose was contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. The arbitral award founded on that agreement was therefore invalid and liable to be set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767670