https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183155 Article 31A(1)'s compensation proviso applies where the State is, in substance, the beneficiary of a taking, rather than where a consolidation scheme merely modifies proprietary rights for common village purposes. Reservation and redistribution of land managed by a Panchayat were treated as leaving ownership with the proprietary body and therefore not constituting State acquisition requiring market-value compensation. A delayed challenge to the Consolidation Officer's appointment was rejected on laches because consolidation had been completed and no manifest injustice was shown. The constitutional challenge to the consolidation scheme consequently failed, although the dissent viewed the transfer of control and benefits as substantive acquisition. en-us Fri, 18 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 May 2016 18:44:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183155 Article 31A(1)'s compensation proviso applies where the State is, in substance, the beneficiary of a taking, rather than where a consolidation scheme merely modifies proprietary rights for common village purposes. Reservation and redistribution of land managed by a Panchayat were treated as leaving ownership with the proprietary body and therefore not constituting State acquisition requiring market-value compensation. A delayed challenge to the Consolidation Officer's appointment was rejected on laches because consolidation had been completed and no manifest injustice was shown. The constitutional challenge to the consolidation scheme consequently failed, although the dissent viewed the transfer of control and benefits as substantive acquisition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183155