Acquisition of Land Act 1981
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
23 Grounds for application to High Court.
(1) If any person aggrieved by a compulsory purchase order desires to question the validity thereof, or of any provision contained therein, on the ground that the authorisation of a compulsory purchase thereby granted is not empowered to be granted under this Act or any such enactment as is mentioned in section 1(1) of this Act, he may make an application to the High Court. (2) If any person aggrieved by— (a) a compulsory purchase order, or (b) a certificate under Part III of, or Schedule 3 to, this Act, desires to question the validity thereof on the ground that any relevant requirement has not been complied with in relation to the order or certificate he may make an application to the High Court. (3) In subsection (2) above “relevant requirement” means— (a) any requirement of this Act, or of any regulation under section 7(2) above, or (b) any requirement of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 or of any rules made, or having effect as if made, under that Act. (4) An application to the High Court under this section shall be made within six weeks— (a) in the case of a compulsory purchase order to which the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 applies (and which is not excluded by section 27 below), from the date on which the order becomes operative under that Act, (b) in the case of a compulsory purchase order to which the said Act of 1945 does not apply, from the date on which notice of the confirmation or making of the order is first published in accordance with this Act, (c) in the case of a certificate, the date on which notice of the giving of the certificate is first published in accordance with this Act.
23 Grounds for application to High Court.
(1) If any person aggrieved by a compulsory purchase order desires to question the validity thereof, or of any provision contained therein, on the ground that the authorisation of a compulsory purchase thereby granted is not empowered to be granted under this Act or any such enactment as is mentioned in section 1(1) of this Act, he may make an application to the High Court. (2) If any person aggrieved by— (a) a compulsory purchase order, or (b) a certificate under Part III of, or Schedule 3 to, this Act, desires to question the validity thereof on the ground that any relevant requirement has not been complied with in relation to the order or certificate he may make an application to the High Court. (3) In subsection (2) above “relevant requirement” means— (a) any requirement of this Act, or of any regulation under section 7(2) above, or (b) any requirement of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 or of any rules made, or having effect as if made, under that Act. (4) An application to the High Court under this section shall be made within six weeks— (a) in the case of a compulsory purchase order to which the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 applies (and which is not excluded by section 27 below), from the date on which the order becomes operative under that Act, (b) in the case of a compulsory purchase order to which the said Act of 1945 does not apply, from the date on which notice of the confirmation or making of the order is first published in accordance with this Act, (c) in the case of a certificate, the date on which notice of the giving of the certificate is first published in accordance with this Act.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.