https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183155 The article explains that a delayed challenge to consolidation proceedings was rejected on laches, as the objection to the Consolidation Officer's appointment was raised after completion of the process and no manifest injustice was shown. It also states that, under Article 31A(1), reservation and redistribution of land under the consolidation scheme were treated by the majority as a modification of rights rather than an acquisition by the State, because the State was not the real beneficiary and the land remained with the proprietary body for common village purposes. The dissent considered the scheme to be substantive acquisition requiring compensation at market value. 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 The article explains that a delayed challenge to consolidation proceedings was rejected on laches, as the objection to the Consolidation Officer's appointment was raised after completion of the process and no manifest injustice was shown. It also states that, under Article 31A(1), reservation and redistribution of land under the consolidation scheme were treated by the majority as a modification of rights rather than an acquisition by the State, because the State was not the real beneficiary and the land remained with the proprietary body for common village purposes. The dissent considered the scheme to be substantive acquisition requiring compensation at market value. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183155