https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304724 The article explains that a State law validly authorised the Commissioner to exercise acquisition powers under the Land Acquisition Act, and that such delegation did not transfer an essential legislative function. It then notes that the acquisition notifications failed because the declared public purpose rested on a mistaken factual basis: compensation was in fact to be funded through a loan to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, not public revenues, showing non-application of mind and a colourable exercise of power. The acquisition was also held to be in substance for a company, requiring Part VII compliance, which was not followed. The urgency declaration under Section 17 was invalid because the land did not meet the statutory conditions for exclusion of Section 5-A. en-us Fri, 31 Jul 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Feb 2025 13:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304724 The article explains that a State law validly authorised the Commissioner to exercise acquisition powers under the Land Acquisition Act, and that such delegation did not transfer an essential legislative function. It then notes that the acquisition notifications failed because the declared public purpose rested on a mistaken factual basis: compensation was in fact to be funded through a loan to the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, not public revenues, showing non-application of mind and a colourable exercise of power. The acquisition was also held to be in substance for a company, requiring Part VII compliance, which was not followed. The urgency declaration under Section 17 was invalid because the land did not meet the statutory conditions for exclusion of Section 5-A. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 31 Jul 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304724