https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287968 A statutory power to requisition land was treated as distinct from acquisition and within legislative competence. The purposes stated in the enactment, including maintenance of essential supplies and rehabilitation or allotment of land to landless, flood-affected, or displaced persons, were held to satisfy the public purpose requirement under Article 31(2). The compensation scheme was upheld because Article 31(2) required provision for compensation, not judicial reassessment of its adequacy, and the special treatment of certain grant or settlement lands was not confiscatory. Requisition and appellate orders were characterised as administrative, so writ interference was refused where disputed facts, natural justice objections, and mala fides were not established. en-us Fri, 06 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2020 18:21:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287968 A statutory power to requisition land was treated as distinct from acquisition and within legislative competence. The purposes stated in the enactment, including maintenance of essential supplies and rehabilitation or allotment of land to landless, flood-affected, or displaced persons, were held to satisfy the public purpose requirement under Article 31(2). The compensation scheme was upheld because Article 31(2) required provision for compensation, not judicial reassessment of its adequacy, and the special treatment of certain grant or settlement lands was not confiscatory. Requisition and appellate orders were characterised as administrative, so writ interference was refused where disputed facts, natural justice objections, and mala fides were not established. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Mar 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287968