https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469880 Acquisition under Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act was not void merely because notice under Section 52(2) was not served on purchasers whose names were not mutated in the revenue record; notice to the recorded khatedars and the presumption of regularity sufficed. A bare suit for injunction, without declaratory relief and without impleading the State, was not maintainable once the acquisition had created a cloud on title and vested the land in the State. The civil suit was also barred by Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act because the relief could be pursued before the revenue forum. The appeal failed and the respondents' decree remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 11:24:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469880 Acquisition under Section 52(1) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust Act was not void merely because notice under Section 52(2) was not served on purchasers whose names were not mutated in the revenue record; notice to the recorded khatedars and the presumption of regularity sufficed. A bare suit for injunction, without declaratory relief and without impleading the State, was not maintainable once the acquisition had created a cloud on title and vested the land in the State. The civil suit was also barred by Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act because the relief could be pursued before the revenue forum. The appeal failed and the respondents' decree remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469880