https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313688 The Madras HC examined challenges to State land acquisition enactments under Article 14, repugnancy under Article 254, presidential assent, and the operation of Section 105-A in the Central land acquisition framework. It held that differential acquisition regimes did not by themselves prove arbitrariness or manifest arbitrariness, and rejected the claim that presidential assent was granted without due consideration. The Court further held that once the Central law received assent, inconsistent State enactments became void to the extent of repugnancy and could not be revived merely by inserting them into Section 105-A without fresh re-enactment. It also treated the notification and legislative-laying requirements in Section 105-A(2) and (3) as mandatory. en-us Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Apr 2024 18:06:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313688 The Madras HC examined challenges to State land acquisition enactments under Article 14, repugnancy under Article 254, presidential assent, and the operation of Section 105-A in the Central land acquisition framework. It held that differential acquisition regimes did not by themselves prove arbitrariness or manifest arbitrariness, and rejected the claim that presidential assent was granted without due consideration. The Court further held that once the Central law received assent, inconsistent State enactments became void to the extent of repugnancy and could not be revived merely by inserting them into Section 105-A without fresh re-enactment. It also treated the notification and legislative-laying requirements in Section 105-A(2) and (3) as mandatory. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313688