https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292788 Section 8(3)(a) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 was upheld because acquisition of property already under requisition is materially different from direct land acquisition. The Court held that denial of solatium and interest does not create hostile discrimination where the owner has already received compensation for the requisition period and the statute requires just compensation within its own scheme. The Act's inclusion in the Ninth Schedule also attracted Article 31-B protection retrospectively, so any Part III-based challenge to the scheduled enactment failed. The constitutional challenge was therefore rejected, and the impugned provision stood validated. en-us Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jan 2021 09:14:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292788 Section 8(3)(a) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 was upheld because acquisition of property already under requisition is materially different from direct land acquisition. The Court held that denial of solatium and interest does not create hostile discrimination where the owner has already received compensation for the requisition period and the statute requires just compensation within its own scheme. The Act's inclusion in the Ninth Schedule also attracted Article 31-B protection retrospectively, so any Part III-based challenge to the scheduled enactment failed. The constitutional challenge was therefore rejected, and the impugned provision stood validated. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292788