Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 84 (2.04 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Gujarat Etc.Etc vs Daya Shamji Bhai Etc.Etc on 25 August, 1995

Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs Gokal And Anr. on 6 August, 2001

The judgment of Union of India v. Sulochana Devi and Ors. (supra), also, only provides that the claimants are entitled for solatium and interest as per Section 23 but in those cases the question under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 was not involved, whereas in the cases of State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamaji Bhai (supra) and Ishwarlal Premchand Shah and Ors. v. State of Gujarat (supra), the award of interest and solatium in the matter of award under Section 11(2) and Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 was specifically the point in controversy and when Hon'ble the Apex Court has decided that in case the solatium, interest and additional amount are not included in the agreement then the Land Acquisition Officer is not required to award above amount and claimants are not entitled for that.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - P C Tatia - Full Document

Suresh D. Bankapur, vs State Of Karnataka, on 28 March, 2013

20.2. Determination of the compensation would be done under Section 23(1) on the basis of market value prevailing as on the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4(1). It 47 would, therefore, be open to the parties to enter into a contract under Section 11(2), without the necessity to determine the compensation under Section 23(1) and to receive market value at the rate incorporated in the contract signed under Section 11(2), and in that event, the L.A.O. has power to pass an award in terms thereof and that the award need not contain payment of interest, solatium and additional amount unless it is also a part of the contract between the parties. Thus, the landowners/persons to be compensated are not entitled to payment of additional amount by way of solatium, interest on the market value under the provisions of the L.A. Act if the amount of compensation is determined by agreement (see State of Gujarat Vs. Dayashamji Bhai).
Karnataka High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 1 - D B Bhosale - Full Document

Dilip Babubhai Shah And Ors vs Additioal Resident Deputy Collector ... on 24 February, 2023

In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Daya Shamji Bhai & Ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, Supreme Court in the said judgment held that the claimants had agreed to receive compensation and 25 per cent more in addition thereto and agreed not to seek any reference under Section 18. They had also agreed to forgo their right to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. In view of the specific contract made by the respondents in terms of Section 11(2), they were not held entitled to seek a reference from civil Court. In our view, this judgment would not advance the case of the petitioners. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners not having appeared before the competent authority and not having agreed to accept the compensation by consent cannot be allowed to apply for 23 wp14582-22.doc enhancement of claim under Section 64 of the said Fair Compensation Act, 2013.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 23 July, 2013

31. Therefore, it follows from the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujrat (supra), if the award is consent award and if the claimant has agreed not to question the said award and even ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:09:36 ::: 47 CRA286.11 agreed that, the said amount would include interest, solatium and other statutory benefits then in that case, it is not open for the claimant to seek reference on such award.
Bombay High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Dilip Babubhai Shah And Ors vs Additioal Resident Deputy Collector ... on 24 February, 2023

In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Daya Shamji Bhai & Ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, Supreme Court in the said judgment held that the claimants had agreed to receive compensation and 25 per cent more in addition thereto and agreed not to seek any reference under Section 18. They had also agreed to forgo their right to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. In view of the specific contract made by the respondents in terms of Section 11(2), they were not held entitled to seek a reference from civil Court. In our view, this judgment would not advance the case of the petitioners. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners not having appeared before the competent authority and not having agreed to accept the compensation by consent cannot be allowed to apply for 23 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2023 00:59:39 ::: wp14582-22.doc enhancement of claim under Section 64 of the said Fair Compensation Act, 2013.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Gokul vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. And Anr. on 4 April, 2005

18. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 while referring the relevant provisions of Section 11(2), 23(1-A), 23(2) and Section 31 of the Act of 1894, further submitted that though on the applications of some of the agriculturist-claimants, the matters have been referred to the learned Civil Court but looking to the total terms of the compromise minutely, no further enquiry with regard to determination of value of the land under Section 23 of the said Act was required. The State Government submitted that the learned Reference Court should to have taken a different view and should not have taken a different view and should not have held that the solatium and additional amount were not included in the agreed cost of the land. In this way, the judgment of the learned Reference Court was not in accordance with the agreed terms mentioned in the written compromise Ex.A/1 dated 26.11.88 and the judgment was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge after detailed discussion. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 also placed reliance on Ishwarlal Premchand Shah and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1616 and State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Daya Shamji Bhai and Ors., 1995(5) SCC 746. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has stated that the rulings cited by the appellants' side are not applicable at all as there was no need to determine the cost of the land under Section 23 and the amount of solatium and additional amount under Section 23(2) and 23(1-A) of the Act of 1894. Therefore, the procedure laid down under Section 23 of the Act was not required to be followed. The law laid down in the afore-mentioned citations with regard to solatium and additional amount is not applicable. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has prayed that no serious illegality and material irregularity have been pointed out by the appellants' side. The judgment of the learned Single Judge be maintained and the appeals of the appellants be dismissed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M L Mohta - Full Document

Ranveer Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others on 22 May, 2014

9. This Court in State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai had considered the similar contentions and held, that once the parties have agreed under Section 11(2) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has power under Section 11(2) to pass the award in terms thereof and that the award need not contain payment of interest, solatium and additional amount unless it is also part of the contract between the parties. The same ratio applies to the facts in this case. In view of the above clauses in the agreements the appellants are not entitled to the payment of additional amounts by way of solatium, interest and additional amount under the provisions of the Act."
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs Lakshmanbabu Gayakwad And Ors. on 14 November, 2006

A compromise is always bilateral and means a mutual adjustment. According to New Standard Dictionary, a 'compromise' means agreement or adjustment for me settlement of controversy by mutual concession often involving partial surrender. Therefore, a person who has entered into an agreement voluntarily, mind you, that there is no prohibition in law against waiving of any right under the Act, to settle the matters to be included in the award of the Deputy Commissioner, cannot be an "aggrieved person", since he is not unjustly deprived or denied of something, which he would be entitled to obtain under the Act. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai AIR 1996 SC 133, while considering the issue whether a person interested in the land, who had opted for consent award, whether he could seek reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act was pleased to observe that "Sub-section (2) of Section 11 gives right to the parties to enter into an agreement to receive award compensation awarded under Section 11 in terms of the contract. In fact, it would be more expeditious to have the dispute sorted out so as to avoid delay in determination of proper compensation. The contract between the owners and the Collector in writing of the terms to be included in the award of the Collector is conclusive and binds the parties. They would not be entitled to seek any reference for enhancement of the compensation required to be adjudicated under Section 23(1) of the Act".
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Paturu Yerragangaiah Gari Avul Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 February, 2022

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, contends that the claimants have no right to claim compensation at enhanced rates when Consent Award is passed, the petitioners MSM,J WP No.32565 of 2018 13 are not entitled to claim any relief based on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar (referred supra) In State of Karnataka v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar (referred supra), the Apex Court relied on the judgments of State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai3 and Ishwarlal Premchand Shah v. State of Gujarat4.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next