https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287994 Under pre-amendment Article 31, compensation for compulsory acquisition had to be the fair and just equivalent of the property taken, ordinarily measured by market value at the date of acquisition. A valuation rule that fixed the date of requisition as the basis, when ownership continued until acquisition, was treated as arbitrary. A further requirement that compensation be assessed on the lesser of two alternative valuation bases was inconsistent with the constitutional demand for just compensation. On that reasoning, section 8(3)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, including the words "whichever is less", was declared ultra vires Article 31 and void. en-us Fri, 07 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 May 2020 16:06:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287994 Under pre-amendment Article 31, compensation for compulsory acquisition had to be the fair and just equivalent of the property taken, ordinarily measured by market value at the date of acquisition. A valuation rule that fixed the date of requisition as the basis, when ownership continued until acquisition, was treated as arbitrary. A further requirement that compensation be assessed on the lesser of two alternative valuation bases was inconsistent with the constitutional demand for just compensation. On that reasoning, section 8(3)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, including the words "whichever is less", was declared ultra vires Article 31 and void. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Aug 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287994