https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182892 A consolidation scheme reserving land for common village purposes was treated as a modification of proprietary rights, not an acquisition by the State under the second proviso to Article 31A(1), because title remained with the proprietors and the Panchayat held the land on their behalf for common use. The market-value compensation proviso was therefore held inapplicable on those facts. The challenge to the Consolidation Officer's authority based on retrospective appointment also did not succeed, as the objection was raised after completion of the consolidation and was met by the presumption of regular official action and laches. en-us Fri, 02 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 May 2016 18:36:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182892 A consolidation scheme reserving land for common village purposes was treated as a modification of proprietary rights, not an acquisition by the State under the second proviso to Article 31A(1), because title remained with the proprietors and the Panchayat held the land on their behalf for common use. The market-value compensation proviso was therefore held inapplicable on those facts. The challenge to the Consolidation Officer's authority based on retrospective appointment also did not succeed, as the objection was raised after completion of the consolidation and was met by the presumption of regular official action and laches. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182892