https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282363 Urgency acquisition under Section 17 is valid only when genuine immediate necessity is expressly shown, and denial of the owner's Section 5A objection right cannot rest on a bare public-purpose claim; the urgency notifications were invalid. Section 17(3A) also required tender of 80% of the estimated compensation before possession, and mere sanction processing did not satisfy that mandatory condition; the acquisition was illegal. Acquisition of a built-up commercial property for residential use of government servants, contrary to the published policy and without proper justification, amounted to an abuse of statutory power; the notifications and award were ultra vires and liable to be quashed. en-us Mon, 04 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Aug 2019 12:08:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282363 Urgency acquisition under Section 17 is valid only when genuine immediate necessity is expressly shown, and denial of the owner's Section 5A objection right cannot rest on a bare public-purpose claim; the urgency notifications were invalid. Section 17(3A) also required tender of 80% of the estimated compensation before possession, and mere sanction processing did not satisfy that mandatory condition; the acquisition was illegal. Acquisition of a built-up commercial property for residential use of government servants, contrary to the published policy and without proper justification, amounted to an abuse of statutory power; the notifications and award were ultra vires and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282363