<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1962 (5) TMI 29 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171685</link>
    <description>Section 6 declarations under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are conclusive evidence that land is needed for a public purpose, subject to challenge where the acquisition is fraudulent or a colourable exercise of power. Acquisition for a private industrial undertaking may retain a public purpose where it supports industrial development, employment, foreign-exchange objectives or public utility needs, and a small public contribution to compensation does not by itself invalidate it. Same-day publication of preliminary and final acquisition notifications is permissible where the objection procedure is validly dispensed with for urgency and the preliminary decision precedes the declaration. Selection between competing projects does not breach equality guarantees without proof of arbitrary discrimination. A dissenting view required a substantial public contribution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2018 15:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391642" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (5) TMI 29 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171685</link>
      <description>Section 6 declarations under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are conclusive evidence that land is needed for a public purpose, subject to challenge where the acquisition is fraudulent or a colourable exercise of power. Acquisition for a private industrial undertaking may retain a public purpose where it supports industrial development, employment, foreign-exchange objectives or public utility needs, and a small public contribution to compensation does not by itself invalidate it. Same-day publication of preliminary and final acquisition notifications is permissible where the objection procedure is validly dispensed with for urgency and the preliminary decision precedes the declaration. Selection between competing projects does not breach equality guarantees without proof of arbitrary discrimination. A dissenting view required a substantial public contribution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>