Lalji And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 6 January, 1989
The Andhra Pradesh Court held that it would have referred the matter to a larger Bench doubting the correctness of the view taken in Mawahedduddin's case.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.64 seconds)The Competent Authority, Special ... vs Thota Penta Reddy And Ors. on 22 July, 1986
13. Though we have disagreed with the principle underlying the decision of the Bench in Mawahedduddin's case , we wish to refer to the relevance and applicability of the equality clause in Art. 14 of the Constitution which may, in some cases, lead to the same result.
State Of West Bengal And Ors. vs Pradip Kumar Agasti And Ors. on 23 July, 2004
At the same time, in Mawahedduddin v. Collector (supra), a contrary view was taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the Act by necessary implication did not exclude the application of the principle of payment of solatium; and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Kishen Khosla v. Union of India , relied on by Mr. Chatterjee, had taken the view that solatium is also payable, but for the reasons discussed hereinbefore, respectfully we are unable to agree with the view taken therein.
The Collector vs Ratan Shanker Prasad on 2 August, 1984
5. Thus, the compensation amount comprises not only the market value of the land but also the solatium. Compensation and market value are distinct expressions and have been used as such in the Land Acquisition Act. The key to the meaning ' of the word 'compensation' is to be found in Section 23 and that consists of the market value of the land and the sum of fifteen per centum on such market value which is stated to be the consideration for the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Market value is only one of the components in the determination of compensation. The additional amount of fifteen per cent, forms part of the amount of compensation because under Section 23 the compensation is to consist of amounts provided in Sub-section (1) and the additional amount calculated at the rate of fifteen per cent. On the market value of the land acquired vide Union of India v. Ram Mehar AIR, 1973 SC 305 (See also Mawahedduddin v. Collector, Hyderabad AIR 1984 Andh Pra 217).
1