https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156788 The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was not constitutionally invalid under Article 31-A(1), and the objection that compensation was not at market rate failed because the acquisition concerned excess vacant land, not agricultural land. A determination of excess land that was not appealed against or revised became final and binding, and once vesting had occurred under Section 10(3) with possession notice under Section 10(5), the proceedings could not be reopened years later. The challenge to the competent authority's order and the subsequent vesting process was therefore rejected, and the dismissal of the writ petition was upheld. en-us Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Oct 2025 15:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156788 The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act was not constitutionally invalid under Article 31-A(1), and the objection that compensation was not at market rate failed because the acquisition concerned excess vacant land, not agricultural land. A determination of excess land that was not appealed against or revised became final and binding, and once vesting had occurred under Section 10(3) with possession notice under Section 10(5), the proceedings could not be reopened years later. The challenge to the competent authority's order and the subsequent vesting process was therefore rejected, and the dismissal of the writ petition was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156788