https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174585 A compensation formula for compulsory acquisition must provide a just equivalent of the property taken; pegging compensation to the lesser of market value on acquisition and twice the value on requisition was arbitrary because it froze value by an anterior date and ignored later appreciation. Section 8(3)(b) therefore failed Article 31(2) and was invalid. Relief under Article 226 was also not barred by delay, because the petition raised an alleged infringement of a fundamental right and no sufficient basis was shown to refuse discretionary relief. The challenge accordingly succeeded on both grounds. en-us Thu, 07 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:47:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174585 A compensation formula for compulsory acquisition must provide a just equivalent of the property taken; pegging compensation to the lesser of market value on acquisition and twice the value on requisition was arbitrary because it froze value by an anterior date and ignored later appreciation. Section 8(3)(b) therefore failed Article 31(2) and was invalid. Relief under Article 226 was also not barred by delay, because the petition raised an alleged infringement of a fundamental right and no sufficient basis was shown to refuse discretionary relief. The challenge accordingly succeeded on both grounds. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174585