2009 (9) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the proviso to Section 17(4) inserted by the Amending Act cures the defect pointed out in Radhey Shyam only for the period between 24.9.1984 and 11.1.1989?

Whether declaration mentioned in the aforesaid proviso refers to it as understood by Section 6(1) or Section 6(2)?

Whether the validation provision in Section 3 of the Amending Act goes beyond the newly inserted proviso inasmuch as it cures the defect of publication of the declaration and not making of the declaration, it validates publication of the declaration under Section 6 prior and subsequent to the date of the publication under Section 4(1) of the principal Act.

Whether in view of the admitted incapacity to offer, tender and pay the compensation under sub-Section (3) and (3A) of Section 17, the notification under Section 17(4) becomes void?

Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Enough evidence in shape of the stand taken by the LDA in its counter affidavit before the High Court, where it was asserted that the possession was already taken. Even in the present Civil Appeal, the same stand is reported with reference to a particular date, i.e., 21.5.1985 that the possession was taken and there is also a true copy of the Panchanama on record