https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313018 The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was held inconsistent with the 2013 land acquisition regime to the extent it permits industrial area acquisition without complying with the mandatory safeguards on acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was held applicable to acquisitions initiated under the State Act through Section 30's referential incorporation and Article 14 equality principles. Deemed vesting under Section 28(5) was held not to exclude deemed divesting and lapsing where Section 24(2)'s conditions are met. The later decision in Anasuya Bai was held not to control or defeat the challenge raised in these petitions. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:52:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313018 The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was held inconsistent with the 2013 land acquisition regime to the extent it permits industrial area acquisition without complying with the mandatory safeguards on acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was held applicable to acquisitions initiated under the State Act through Section 30's referential incorporation and Article 14 equality principles. Deemed vesting under Section 28(5) was held not to exclude deemed divesting and lapsing where Section 24(2)'s conditions are met. The later decision in Anasuya Bai was held not to control or defeat the challenge raised in these petitions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313018