https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168318 The acquisition notification was not set aside for want of public purpose because the section 6 declaration was conclusive absent proof of colourable exercise of power, and that challenge failed. The urgency notifications under sections 17(1) and 17(4) were ultra vires because the land was forest land, not waste or arable land, so exclusion of section 5A objections lacked a valid jurisdictional basis. The Court also held that, on the Sanads and surrounding materials, the grant carried sub-soil and mineral rights without reservation, so the appellant owned the minerals. Restoration of possession was refused in view of the later vesting of the intermediary interest. en-us Fri, 16 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 17:27:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168318 The acquisition notification was not set aside for want of public purpose because the section 6 declaration was conclusive absent proof of colourable exercise of power, and that challenge failed. The urgency notifications under sections 17(1) and 17(4) were ultra vires because the land was forest land, not waste or arable land, so exclusion of section 5A objections lacked a valid jurisdictional basis. The Court also held that, on the Sanads and surrounding materials, the grant carried sub-soil and mineral rights without reservation, so the appellant owned the minerals. Restoration of possession was refused in view of the later vesting of the intermediary interest. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168318