https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297218 Section 20B of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was examined for constitutional validity under Article 31(2). The provision was found to give the Central Government unguided discretion by using the broad standard of what was "not expedient or practicable," permitting deprivation of restoration without a true public-purpose limitation. It was also defective because it failed to fix compensation or state definite principles for valuation, including the relevant date for assessment. The saving argument under Article 31(2A) was rejected, as the section was not severable in operation and, for property still in the compensation pool, it effected vesting in the Central Government. Section 20B was therefore unconstitutional and void. en-us Mon, 12 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:33:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297218 Section 20B of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was examined for constitutional validity under Article 31(2). The provision was found to give the Central Government unguided discretion by using the broad standard of what was "not expedient or practicable," permitting deprivation of restoration without a true public-purpose limitation. It was also defective because it failed to fix compensation or state definite principles for valuation, including the relevant date for assessment. The saving argument under Article 31(2A) was rejected, as the section was not severable in operation and, for property still in the compensation pool, it effected vesting in the Central Government. Section 20B was therefore unconstitutional and void. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297218