https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295204 Acquisition for execution of the Interim General Plan for Greater Delhi was treated as a valid public purpose, and the vagueness challenge failed because the overall planned-development scheme sufficiently identified the acquisition's object; the fact that some lands were later excluded did not affect legality. The challenge under Section 5A also failed because the record did not establish denial of a hearing: the written objection was on file, the Collector considered the objections, and there was no reliable material showing that the landowner's representative had actually appeared and been refused audience. The validity of the acquisition proceedings was therefore upheld. en-us Tue, 19 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 May 2021 13:28:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295204 Acquisition for execution of the Interim General Plan for Greater Delhi was treated as a valid public purpose, and the vagueness challenge failed because the overall planned-development scheme sufficiently identified the acquisition's object; the fact that some lands were later excluded did not affect legality. The challenge under Section 5A also failed because the record did not establish denial of a hearing: the written objection was on file, the Collector considered the objections, and there was no reliable material showing that the landowner's representative had actually appeared and been refused audience. The validity of the acquisition proceedings was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295204