https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193079 Land acquisition for a housing board scheme and planned urban development was construed as a work of public utility under Article 226(6), because public utility was read broadly to include projects serving a public welfare purpose and benefiting a considerable section of the public, even if not the entire community. On that basis, the constitutional bar against interim stay or injunction applied. The Court also found that possession had already been taken, no present possessory right or irreparable injury was shown, and the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the scheme. Interim protection was therefore refused on equitable grounds. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:10:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193079 Land acquisition for a housing board scheme and planned urban development was construed as a work of public utility under Article 226(6), because public utility was read broadly to include projects serving a public welfare purpose and benefiting a considerable section of the public, even if not the entire community. On that basis, the constitutional bar against interim stay or injunction applied. The Court also found that possession had already been taken, no present possessory right or irreparable injury was shown, and the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the scheme. Interim protection was therefore refused on equitable grounds. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193079