https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192148 The commentary explains that validating legislation for land acquisition can lawfully cure past defects if enacted within legislative competence, even without an express retrospective revival of the earlier notification. It notes the majority view that such validation did not offend the constitutional compensation guarantee because it did not alter the basic compensation principle under the acquisition law, but only permitted multiple declarations for land covered by one notification. The article also states that the amendment and denotification policy survived Article 14 review because the distinctions drawn were supported by a rational basis. A dissent is noted, taking the view that the validating provision unlawfully treated a dead notification as effective and impaired compensation. en-us Wed, 07 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 May 2017 11:18:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192148 The commentary explains that validating legislation for land acquisition can lawfully cure past defects if enacted within legislative competence, even without an express retrospective revival of the earlier notification. It notes the majority view that such validation did not offend the constitutional compensation guarantee because it did not alter the basic compensation principle under the acquisition law, but only permitted multiple declarations for land covered by one notification. The article also states that the amendment and denotification policy survived Article 14 review because the distinctions drawn were supported by a rational basis. A dissent is noted, taking the view that the validating provision unlawfully treated a dead notification as effective and impaired compensation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192148