<?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>2007 (2) TMI 734 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468355</link>
    <description>A preliminary land acquisition notification cannot be quashed merely because it followed a decree for possession in favour of the landowners; a prior decree and the exercise of statutory acquisition power are distinct, and mala fides or colourable exercise of power must be independently established. The statutory process requires notice, objections, and consideration before any final declaration, so interference at the initial stage is premature and the landowners may raise objections in the prescribed procedure. Simultaneous issuance of notifications for declaration of industrial area, extension of Chapter VII, and intention to acquire land was not illegal, as the scheme did not bar same-day issuance and no statutory prohibition was shown. The challenge to the acquisition notice therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 15:33:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 734 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468355</link>
      <description>A preliminary land acquisition notification cannot be quashed merely because it followed a decree for possession in favour of the landowners; a prior decree and the exercise of statutory acquisition power are distinct, and mala fides or colourable exercise of power must be independently established. The statutory process requires notice, objections, and consideration before any final declaration, so interference at the initial stage is premature and the landowners may raise objections in the prescribed procedure. Simultaneous issuance of notifications for declaration of industrial area, extension of Chapter VII, and intention to acquire land was not illegal, as the scheme did not bar same-day issuance and no statutory prohibition was shown. The challenge to the acquisition notice therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>