https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314363 Acquisition for planned industrial development was not to be quashed merely because invocation of the urgency power was challenged, where the record showed substantial development on the acquired land, including roads and infrastructure, and most landowners had already received compensation. The earlier ruling in Savitri Devi and the Full Bench decision on the same acquisition regime for village Chhapraula were applied to limit relief to enhanced compensation and allotment of developed land. On that basis, the notifications were upheld and quashing was refused. en-us Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jun 2024 19:29:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314363 Acquisition for planned industrial development was not to be quashed merely because invocation of the urgency power was challenged, where the record showed substantial development on the acquired land, including roads and infrastructure, and most landowners had already received compensation. The earlier ruling in Savitri Devi and the Full Bench decision on the same acquisition regime for village Chhapraula were applied to limit relief to enhanced compensation and allotment of developed land. On that basis, the notifications were upheld and quashing was refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314363