https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197630 In a company acquisition under Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act, the State could not lawfully withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 on the mistaken premise that government contribution was required. The acquisition was governed by the company-acquisition scheme because the entire cost was to be borne by the company, with the agreement and declaration under the Act and the Companies Rules already in place. A Section 4 notification describing the object as a public purpose did not change that legal character. The withdrawal was arbitrary, not bona fide, and based on a misconstruction of law, so it was held unlawful. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:18:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197630 In a company acquisition under Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act, the State could not lawfully withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 on the mistaken premise that government contribution was required. The acquisition was governed by the company-acquisition scheme because the entire cost was to be borne by the company, with the agreement and declaration under the Act and the Companies Rules already in place. A Section 4 notification describing the object as a public purpose did not change that legal character. The withdrawal was arbitrary, not bona fide, and based on a misconstruction of law, so it was held unlawful. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197630