Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Notice to persons Inler"ted (I) The Collector shallthcn cauS( ncar the land to be IlIkcn, stating that II and thai claims to compensation for all (2) Such noticc shall state the pa persons interested in the land to appeal and place therein mentioned (such tim publil,;atioll of the notice). and to state the amount and particulars of their c objections (ifany) to the mcasurcn~nll require such statement to be nklde in ... (3) The Collector shall also seN such land and on all such persons Imo to act for persons so interested. as re lheir behalf. within the revcnue di:mie 1_ Sub. by ALO 11J~ f<)l' wurds ·Pruvil'l;l.Il i • lition Act. 1894 e the declaration of existence of the public becomes conclusive by force ofstatue. The Iy proving that what in law was regarded as acquisition is found to be perfectly valid it : possibility of some land being surplus or was acquired could operate retrospectively l. • K.1I. Srivivasan v. State oJMysorf!. AIR /993(J)ALT. /50. lfthc Government-When the Government is mdcr Section 5-A Ihal a particular land was on under Section 6 can be issued. However. compulsory acquisition could be declared public purpose other than theonc stated in "SIOle ofPUI/jab. AIR /968 Del. 97 alld sec 800: 1976(/) SCR 875: AIR /977 SC isition of the land and the other co-.owners compensation and also for enhancement of ry was claimed. however. there could be no llhc brothers only by excluding the father. ~reas the others may be satisfied with such ion 18 that the person interested in ordcr to I so only ifhe docs not acecpt the award or :ompcnsation is accepted such perSOll may 'Oni Kumar Dhingra v. SJateofPunjab, AIR ': /992(/) UJ ((SO 780.' /992(2) SCR 39: iiliealion was challenged on the ground that tined and no agreement was executed as no malerinl to show thi!t there was any m under Section 4 and 6 was issued for cngcd on the ground that neither consent of any !>cerncd to have executed agreement, it >cen contravened. In such circumstances it .ules 3 and 4M Mis. Larsen and Toubro Lid. ation-Notifiei,ltion published in the District the objection raised for the first time before lny having no locus standi- The respondent ositcd huge amount towards compensation. tin the basis of highly teehnic:!1 objections. :(lOn 6 has not bcenpublished in thc Official Gazette- That the objection being highly 'hen the same was sought for the first time in . Pvt. Lid. I'. MA Sharat Coking Coo/ Lid. 19Y3(i) Scale 738: /993 (/) CCC 554. -~--.,...- , The Land Acqui~ition Act, 1894 Interpretation ofprovision ofSection 6- The provisions ofSection 6 obliges that the funds for acquisition should be paid cither by the company wholly or partly from public revenue or from some fund controlled or managed by a local authority and refers to source of compensation and not to time ofdeposit - In case, there is any validity in the contention Qfthe appellant, the words should have been 'has been paid' and not 'is to be paid'. Making of deposit of compensation is not a condition precedent for mllking declar--,ttioll under Section 6.- Lt. K. Ladll/ados v. Statt: ofKern/a. A/R /992 Kt:r. J58. Policy ofthe State not to acquire ofreligious saneity that such acquisition will not be void just because the property belongs to religious institution.- Jagananalh Mahuprabhu Bije • ShreeksheJra II. Col/ector; PI/ri. AIR /995 Ori. 56, Acquisition challanged on the ground thnt due to delay in disposal ofthe malter prices of the land had escalnted - It was however found thai the petitioner himself was liable for the delay and therefore. pendency ofjudicial proceeding could not be made a ground to say that due to escalation in prices notification had become bad in law. Tile pendency oflhejudicial proceedings callnot be made a ground to say that in the process due to the escalation in prkes the notification isslled under Section 4( I) had become bad in law-Kalft/enkuuy,v. State of Kera/a. 1997 (3) Supreme 337.