https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295208 For acquisition of a large tract for planned development of Delhi, the notification under Section 4(1) was not invalid merely because it did not specify the precise end use of each parcel at the outset; planned development itself was already a recognised public purpose, and later master and zonal planning could follow the acquisition. The locality publication requirement was also satisfied where the Gazette publication was undisputed and the record showed affixation of the notice at a conspicuous place in the village, supported by the presumption that official acts are regularly performed. On both grounds, the acquisition challenge failed. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 May 2021 15:16:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295208 For acquisition of a large tract for planned development of Delhi, the notification under Section 4(1) was not invalid merely because it did not specify the precise end use of each parcel at the outset; planned development itself was already a recognised public purpose, and later master and zonal planning could follow the acquisition. The locality publication requirement was also satisfied where the Gazette publication was undisputed and the record showed affixation of the notice at a conspicuous place in the village, supported by the presumption that official acts are regularly performed. On both grounds, the acquisition challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295208