https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312869 Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, together with Chapter VII, were upheld as valid after the 2013 land acquisition regime. The Court treated the Act as a special State industrial development law operating in a different field from the central statute, and rejected the challenges based on repugnancy, Article 14, and Article 254. It also found the compensation machinery under Sections 28, 29 and 30 sufficient, noting that acquisition for industrial purposes could proceed lawfully. The impugned notifications under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) were sustained, and compensation was to be aligned with the 2013 Act in terms of the Board's undertaking. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:43:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312869 Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, together with Chapter VII, were upheld as valid after the 2013 land acquisition regime. The Court treated the Act as a special State industrial development law operating in a different field from the central statute, and rejected the challenges based on repugnancy, Article 14, and Article 254. It also found the compensation machinery under Sections 28, 29 and 30 sufficient, noting that acquisition for industrial purposes could proceed lawfully. The impugned notifications under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) were sustained, and compensation was to be aligned with the 2013 Act in terms of the Board's undertaking. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312869