https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194657 A State land-reform law vesting private forest land was held not repugnant to the Central forest law because the two enactments operated in distinct fields: the State law was primarily about land and agrarian reform, while the Central law governed forests and forest management, so there was no direct conflict or need for Presidential assent under Article 254(2). On compensation, the scheme was read as requiring payment for vesting of forest land, and the absence of actual income could not justify denial of compensation altogether. The distinction between no compensation and nil compensation was emphasised, and compensation had to be determined on a reasonable basis consistent with Article 300A and the statute. en-us Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Aug 2023 10:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194657 A State land-reform law vesting private forest land was held not repugnant to the Central forest law because the two enactments operated in distinct fields: the State law was primarily about land and agrarian reform, while the Central law governed forests and forest management, so there was no direct conflict or need for Presidential assent under Article 254(2). On compensation, the scheme was read as requiring payment for vesting of forest land, and the absence of actual income could not justify denial of compensation altogether. The distinction between no compensation and nil compensation was emphasised, and compensation had to be determined on a reasonable basis consistent with Article 300A and the statute. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194657