https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182360 A Section 4(1) land acquisition notification was upheld because a public purpose need not be stated with precision and the sufficiency of that purpose is primarily for the State to determine. The challenge for vagueness and colourable exercise of power failed since the stated object of providing access between temples and related public trust facilities was treated as a public purpose, not a private or purposeless acquisition. The allegation of mala fides also failed because bad faith was not affirmatively established; prior unsuccessful private negotiation and later resort to statutory acquisition did not make the notification illegal. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 08 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 May 2016 18:28:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182360 A Section 4(1) land acquisition notification was upheld because a public purpose need not be stated with precision and the sufficiency of that purpose is primarily for the State to determine. The challenge for vagueness and colourable exercise of power failed since the stated object of providing access between temples and related public trust facilities was treated as a public purpose, not a private or purposeless acquisition. The allegation of mala fides also failed because bad faith was not affirmatively established; prior unsuccessful private negotiation and later resort to statutory acquisition did not make the notification illegal. The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182360