https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458708 A land acquisition challenge under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 failed because the record showed the petitioner's objections were heard under Section 5-A, and the order-sheet discrepancy was treated as a record-keeping defect rather than proof of denial of hearing. The acquisition was upheld as being for a public purpose, since educational and vocational institutions were treated as serving a public need and the Section 6 declaration was treated as conclusive on that question. The agreement under Section 41 was also sustained: general wording on public user did not invalidate it where statutory safeguards, governmental control, and re-entry powers remained effective. en-us Tue, 22 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2024 14:25:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458708 A land acquisition challenge under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 failed because the record showed the petitioner's objections were heard under Section 5-A, and the order-sheet discrepancy was treated as a record-keeping defect rather than proof of denial of hearing. The acquisition was upheld as being for a public purpose, since educational and vocational institutions were treated as serving a public need and the Section 6 declaration was treated as conclusive on that question. The agreement under Section 41 was also sustained: general wording on public user did not invalidate it where statutory safeguards, governmental control, and re-entry powers remained effective. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Jan 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458708