https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283219 Requisitioning was held legally distinct from compulsory acquisition because it does not transfer title, and the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, as amended, was upheld as intra vires and within legislative competence. The Court accepted that the statute could be construed consistently with constitutional limits and rejected the challenge to its validity. However, the requisition order dated 29-5-1950 failed because, under the amended Act with retrospective effect, it had to state the public purpose for which the premises were taken. As the order did not disclose that purpose, it was invalid on its face. en-us Tue, 24 Jul 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283219 Requisitioning was held legally distinct from compulsory acquisition because it does not transfer title, and the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, as amended, was upheld as intra vires and within legislative competence. The Court accepted that the statute could be construed consistently with constitutional limits and rejected the challenge to its validity. However, the requisition order dated 29-5-1950 failed because, under the amended Act with retrospective effect, it had to state the public purpose for which the premises were taken. As the order did not disclose that purpose, it was invalid on its face. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Jul 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283219