Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 161 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Land Acquisition Officer, A. P vs Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao & Anr on 7 February, 2007

Powergrid Corporation Of India Limited vs K.Radhakrishnan on 6 April, 2011

13. I would like to point out that in the same decision in paragraph No.20, the Honourable Apex Court pointed out that the computation of compensation for determination of market value may be carried out on yield basis and multiplier 20, as adopted by the Reference Court in that case was on the higher side and contrary to the well-settled proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Appellant vs R.Seerangan on 5 March, 2024

24. I have gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that insofar as compensation in relation to fruit- bearing trees are concerned, the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. Though Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to an earlier apex Court decision in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao reported in (2002) 3 SCC 526, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court found fault with the High Court for applying a multiplier 18 instead of 8, in the concluding paragraph, the Hon’ble Supreme Court only remitted the matter back to the High Court to decide the claim afresh on merits, having regard to facts and situation.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abraham Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 22 July, 2010

However, this Court is not precluded from taking into consideration other circumstances such as, the potentiality and utility of the land acquired and awarding just compensation to the claimants who are deprived of their lands and other property." It is clear from the above observation that the multiplier in the said case has been sustained only in the peculiar facts thereof. We also notice that the above decision is by a Bench of two Judges whereas LAA 507/2006 etc. 16 the decision reported in AIR 2002 SC 1423 is by a Bench of three Judges. We further notice that this Court has adopted 10 as the multiplier in the case of rubber in a number of cases, considering the commercial value of rubber. Therefore, we adopt 10 as the multiplier in these cases also.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sasmita Sahu vs L.A. Collector on 25 June, 2024

"14. The Land Acquisition Officer in his order has recorded that rain-fed crops such as horse gram, bobbara, column were grown by the claimants-respondents in the acquired land No. F. 1384 to 1388 and in F. 1388, cashew nut plants were raised in some parts of the land to the extent of about Ac. 9.00 cents. Therefore, the finding of the Reference Court that there were no cashew nut trees found on the acquired land is factually Incorrect and cannot be sustained. It has come in the evidence of the claimants- respondents led before the Reference Court that they had raised maize crop at one time, which would have fetched Rs. 4000 to Rs. 5000 per acre to them and other crops jowar and bobbara in the next season. The computation of compensation for determination of market value may be carried out on yield basis and multiplier of 20 adopted by the Reference Court in the cases on hand is on the higher side and contrary to the well-settled proposition of law as laid down by this Court. However, this Court is not precluded from taking into consideration other circumstances such as, the potentiality and utility of the land acquired and awarding just compensation to the claimants who are deprived of their lands and other property. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these cases, as discussed above, we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre to the claimants-respondents is adequate, just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive or unwarranted."
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Executive Engineer (Electrical) vs Smt. Lakshmamma on 29 May, 2019

11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao [(2007) 3 SCC 526: 2007 AIR SCW 1145] wherein claim on yield basis has been held to be relevant for determining the amount of compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act; same principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistri Vs. Financial Commissioner & Revenue Secretary to Government of Punjab [1995 Supp (2) SCC 637], para 4 and Airports Authority of India Vs. Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3 SCC 527]. In Airports Authority [(2002) 34 SCC 527] it was held:
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Sujatha - Full Document

M/S Abhishek Developers vs Power Grid Corporation Of India on 18 October, 2022

11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of 32 each case. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao [(2007) 3 SCC 526: 2007 AIR SCW 1145] wherein claim on yield basis has been held to be relevant for determining the amount of compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act; same principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistri Vs. Financial Commissioner & Revenue Secretary to Government of Punjab [1995 Supp (2) SCC 637], para 4 and Airports Authority of India Vs. Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3 SCC 527]. In Airports Authority [(2002) 34 SCC 527] it was held:
Karnataka High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs Ratilal Chunilal on 16 August, 2007

18. After going through the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rama Rana (supra) as well as Kamadana Ramakrishna (supra) and after going through the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that each of the claimant is entitled for growing 16 quintals cotton per year per acre. The rate of cotton per quintal at the relevant time was Rs. 2100/- at Exhs. 139, 141, 143, 145 which is the price-list of A.P.M.C., Bharuch and other Cooperative Societies which has been produced by the claimants. From that, this Court is of the view that each of the claimant was able to realise income of Rs. 33,600/- per year, 50% is deducted towards cost of cultivation it will come to Rs. 16,800/- per year per acre from the sale of cotton.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next