https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312895 Article 31(3) was treated as a post-enactment procedural requirement for State laws providing for compulsory acquisition or requisition of property, not a substantive bar that made a valid law void ab initio. A State enactment within legislative competence and otherwise consistent with Part III remained unenforceable until the constitutional impediment was removed; once Article 31(3) was repealed, Presidential assent was no longer required and the provisions became enforceable. On legislative competence, the Bangalore Development Authority Act was characterised in pith and substance as a development statute for planned development, with acquisition provisions only incidental. It was therefore traced to Entry 5 of List II, not Entry 42 of List III. en-us Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Mar 2024 16:39:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312895 Article 31(3) was treated as a post-enactment procedural requirement for State laws providing for compulsory acquisition or requisition of property, not a substantive bar that made a valid law void ab initio. A State enactment within legislative competence and otherwise consistent with Part III remained unenforceable until the constitutional impediment was removed; once Article 31(3) was repealed, Presidential assent was no longer required and the provisions became enforceable. On legislative competence, the Bangalore Development Authority Act was characterised in pith and substance as a development statute for planned development, with acquisition provisions only incidental. It was therefore traced to Entry 5 of List II, not Entry 42 of List III. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312895