<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1951 (3) TMI 51 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456937</link>
    <description>The West Bengal Land Development &amp; Planning Act, 1948 was upheld against the constitutional challenge under Articles 19 and 31 because its compensation scheme operated by incorporation of the Land Acquisition Act, and the incorporated provisions continued to apply despite repeal of the earlier Act. The Court also accepted that acquisition for settlement of refugees was a public purpose and rejected the argument that Articles 19 and 31 had to be read together to invalidate the statute. However, the acquisition notification failed because a declaration under Section 4 had to be completed by publication in the Official Gazette before any valid Section 7 declaration could follow; the simultaneous notifications meant that requirement was not met, so the notification was invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:21:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (3) TMI 51 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456937</link>
      <description>The West Bengal Land Development &amp; Planning Act, 1948 was upheld against the constitutional challenge under Articles 19 and 31 because its compensation scheme operated by incorporation of the Land Acquisition Act, and the incorporated provisions continued to apply despite repeal of the earlier Act. The Court also accepted that acquisition for settlement of refugees was a public purpose and rejected the argument that Articles 19 and 31 had to be read together to invalidate the statute. However, the acquisition notification failed because a declaration under Section 4 had to be completed by publication in the Official Gazette before any valid Section 7 declaration could follow; the simultaneous notifications meant that requirement was not met, so the notification was invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>