https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192810 Rule 2(h) of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955 was upheld under Article 14 because the distinction it drew was temporal, separating allotments made before and after commencement of the rule. Made within delegated power under section 40 of the 1954 Act, the rule was not unconstitutional merely because it operated prospectively and altered the legal position from its start date. The allotment in question, made after the rule came into force and in respect of land already within municipal limits, could not be sustained and was held invalid. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:17:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192810 Rule 2(h) of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules, 1955 was upheld under Article 14 because the distinction it drew was temporal, separating allotments made before and after commencement of the rule. Made within delegated power under section 40 of the 1954 Act, the rule was not unconstitutional merely because it operated prospectively and altered the legal position from its start date. The allotment in question, made after the rule came into force and in respect of land already within municipal limits, could not be sustained and was held invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192810