https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169764 Article 31(2) required compulsory acquisition for a public purpose to rest on an objectively established public purpose, so a statutory provision making the Government's declaration conclusive evidence of such purpose was unconstitutional and void. The Court also held that compensation had to be a just equivalent for the property taken; a proviso capping compensation by reference to 31 December 1946, without regard to value at the time of acquisition, could operate arbitrarily and deny full indemnification. That compensation formula was therefore unconstitutional and void, and the High Court's declaration of invalidity was maintained. en-us Fri, 11 Dec 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 May 2015 17:58:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169764 Article 31(2) required compulsory acquisition for a public purpose to rest on an objectively established public purpose, so a statutory provision making the Government's declaration conclusive evidence of such purpose was unconstitutional and void. The Court also held that compensation had to be a just equivalent for the property taken; a proviso capping compensation by reference to 31 December 1946, without regard to value at the time of acquisition, could operate arbitrarily and deny full indemnification. That compensation formula was therefore unconstitutional and void, and the High Court's declaration of invalidity was maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Dec 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169764