https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169650 Land acquisition for development and industrialisation was sustained because the challenge to publication under section 4(1) failed on the record, allegations of profiteering were neither pleaded nor proved, and transfer of developed land through another agency did not convert the acquisition into a company-acquisition case. The policy objection based on caution against unnecessary acquisition of agricultural land also failed, as the development objective remained lawful and the discrimination claim lacked supporting material. The acquisition was upheld in substance, subject only to limited directions to consider allotment for landless persons and a representation concerning temple-related land. en-us Tue, 13 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169650 Land acquisition for development and industrialisation was sustained because the challenge to publication under section 4(1) failed on the record, allegations of profiteering were neither pleaded nor proved, and transfer of developed land through another agency did not convert the acquisition into a company-acquisition case. The policy objection based on caution against unnecessary acquisition of agricultural land also failed, as the development objective remained lawful and the discrimination claim lacked supporting material. The acquisition was upheld in substance, subject only to limited directions to consider allotment for landless persons and a representation concerning temple-related land. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169650