https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279669 Article 14 does not allow a claimant to demand the same benefit as another unit if the earlier exemption was erroneous or unlawful, and the court will not treat such negative equality as a ground to quash acquisition. The planned development authority's satisfaction on whether exemption would prejudice the scheme was not to be displaced by judicial substitution of view, so the discrimination challenge failed. A representation linked to change of land use and surrender of land for widening did not create an enforceable estoppel against the State, and any remedy lay elsewhere. The acquisition proceedings were therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 May 2024 14:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279669 Article 14 does not allow a claimant to demand the same benefit as another unit if the earlier exemption was erroneous or unlawful, and the court will not treat such negative equality as a ground to quash acquisition. The planned development authority's satisfaction on whether exemption would prejudice the scheme was not to be displaced by judicial substitution of view, so the discrimination challenge failed. A representation linked to change of land use and surrender of land for widening did not create an enforceable estoppel against the State, and any remedy lay elsewhere. The acquisition proceedings were therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279669