https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192955 A declaration that land is required for public purpose does not by itself vest title in the State; vesting arises only when possession is actually taken under the acquisition process. On the facts described, the disputed land was never taken into possession under the 1942 proceedings, so it did not vest in the State. After the Constitution of Mewar came into force, a later executive order directing delivery of the land to another person could not divest existing rights without due process of law. The plaintiff was therefore treated as retaining protection over the property and was entitled to injunction and restoration of possession. en-us Mon, 24 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jul 2017 15:57:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192955 A declaration that land is required for public purpose does not by itself vest title in the State; vesting arises only when possession is actually taken under the acquisition process. On the facts described, the disputed land was never taken into possession under the 1942 proceedings, so it did not vest in the State. After the Constitution of Mewar came into force, a later executive order directing delivery of the land to another person could not divest existing rights without due process of law. The plaintiff was therefore treated as retaining protection over the property and was entitled to injunction and restoration of possession. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 24 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192955