https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274571 A retrospective validating amendment was treated as valid where the State Legislature acted within competence, obtained Presidential assent, and removed the defect underlying earlier invalidation rather than merely annulling a judicial decision. Simultaneous publication of the acquisition notification and declaration was therefore sustained under the amended Uttar Pradesh law. The exercise of urgency power dispensing with the Section 5-A inquiry was also upheld because planned housing development was treated as an urgent public purpose, and the existence of some excluded lands, houses, or greenery did not make the acquisition arbitrary. A fully prepared development scheme was not required before issuing the notification, so the writ challenge failed. en-us Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jul 2022 15:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274571 A retrospective validating amendment was treated as valid where the State Legislature acted within competence, obtained Presidential assent, and removed the defect underlying earlier invalidation rather than merely annulling a judicial decision. Simultaneous publication of the acquisition notification and declaration was therefore sustained under the amended Uttar Pradesh law. The exercise of urgency power dispensing with the Section 5-A inquiry was also upheld because planned housing development was treated as an urgent public purpose, and the existence of some excluded lands, houses, or greenery did not make the acquisition arbitrary. A fully prepared development scheme was not required before issuing the notification, so the writ challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274571