https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156531 Land acquisition notifications for industrial and residential development were upheld because such development constituted a recognised public purpose, so the section 4(1) challenge failed. The urgency power under section 17(4) was, however, held to require relevant material and real application of mind before the section 5A inquiry could be dispensed with. A recital in the notification created only a rebuttable presumption of regularity, while the burden remained on the challenger subject to disclosure of facts especially within the State's knowledge where scrutiny was warranted. On the facts, the mechanical language used, absence of supporting material, and lack of demonstrated consideration of urgency meant the exclusion of section 5A was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 11 Oct 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Sep 2013 14:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156531 Land acquisition notifications for industrial and residential development were upheld because such development constituted a recognised public purpose, so the section 4(1) challenge failed. The urgency power under section 17(4) was, however, held to require relevant material and real application of mind before the section 5A inquiry could be dispensed with. A recital in the notification created only a rebuttable presumption of regularity, while the burden remained on the challenger subject to disclosure of facts especially within the State's knowledge where scrutiny was warranted. On the facts, the mechanical language used, absence of supporting material, and lack of demonstrated consideration of urgency meant the exclusion of section 5A was unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Oct 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156531