Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 409 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Periyar And Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 6 September, 1990

The Land Acquisition ... vs Swaminatha Mudaliar And Ors. on 24 October, 1997

Section 23(2) provides that "in additiori'"to the market value of the land as above provided, the court shall in every case award a sum at 15% preceding the Amendment Act and after the Amendment Act, 30% p. a. on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. The legislature, therefore, made a distinction between compensation under Section 23(1) and the additional amount on such market value as solatium in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition, tn other words, Section 28 does not comprehend payment of interest on solatium when it expressly mentions payment of interest on compensation under Section 28 referable to Section 23(1) of the Act., Thus the High Court was right in not awarding interest on solatium. Similar view was taken by this Court after Periyar and Pareekenni Rubbers Ltd. v State of Kerala by three Judge Bench in Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India .
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

P. Ram Reddy vs Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad ... on 19 April, 1993

In yet another case reported in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (6), already referred to supra the Supreme Court took the same view and held that there is no damage due to acquisition of the land of the appellant and therefore the award of severance charges is unwarranted, that the value of the land of the appellant has not been injuriously affected due to the acquisition and therefore no damage due to severance was caused and that under these circumstances the appellant is not entitled to compensation in this regard.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 383 - Full Document

Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyar ... vs Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical ... on 7 February, 1992

In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala , the Supreme Court was concerned about a Government Pleader in a mofussil Court. In my view, the Government Pleader in the High Court has to be held as a-responsible officer and his statement cannot be equated with a statement made by a Government Pleader in the trial Court. I am equally of the view that the Government Pleader in the High Court is responsible for the Government and he is equally a responsible officer of the Court also. It would even go to the extent of saying that all law officers of the High Court are responsible for the statements so made to the High Court. Moreover, the statement made by the then Government Pleader before Venkataswami, J. in W.P. No. 2776 of 1989 is on a point of law and not on facts. I think the law officer is a person who can decide about the question of law and argues when considering the facts and circumstances of a particular case in which he appears before the court.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

State Infrastructure And Industrial ... vs Shri Avdhesh Chaudhary on 22 May, 2026

It is further relevant to point out that in the case of "Periyar" (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly held that when the courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party in its absence, the sales of the neighboring lands. In the present case, since the sale deed of 34 2026:UHC:4078 the property in question was just 16 months prior to the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, hence that could have been one of the best exemplars to be adopted. However, the exemplars adopted for determining the compensation, bears a higher value than the sale deed of the claimant/respondent herein. Therefore, on this count too, the compensation as determined and assessed by the SLAO cannot be faulted with.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Goa vs Srinivas Fatti Naik on 16 October, 1996

7. No doubt, as contended by Shri Tamba in case of fixation of the market value some sort of guess work is permissible. However, the guess work has to be made based on the material found on record and this has been sufficiently clarified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has observed that it is the paramount duty of the courts of facts to subject the evidence to close scrutiny, objectively assess the evidence tendered by the parties on proper considerations thereof in correct perspective to arrive at a reasonahle market value. The Honourable Supreme Court has further observed that the attending facts and circumstances in each case would furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands and that the object of the assessment of the evidence is to arrive at a fair and reasonable market value of the lands and in that process sometimes trench on the border of the guess work but mechanical assessment has to be eschewed. In the impugned judgment we do not find any basis disclosed for the purpose of guesswork in arriving at the enhanced rate of compensation. The sole reasoning disclosed in the impugned judgment for such guess work is found in para 3 thereof which reads as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

U.C.Misrra vs State Of U.P.Through Secy. on 6 February, 2013

29. While agreeing with the judgment in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. V. State of Kerala reported in (1991)4 SCC 195 : AIR 1990 SC 2192 , this court in Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao reported in (1997) 6 SCC 41 held that in a claim for enhancement of compensation the burden of proof was on the claimants that the land was capable of fetching higher compensation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - R Sharma - Full Document

C.E.S.C Limited vs Dr. Nilkamal Bezboruah Tarazan And ... on 27 April, 2015

Lastly, the case law reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2192 (Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Limited versus State of Kerala) referred by the learned Counsel for the appellant is also of no aid since the claimant adduced relevant evidence to establish that the amount offered by the L.A Collector was not based on the prevailing market price of land. It was inadequate and unreasonable.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - N Mhatre - Full Document

Navanath & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 April, 2009

25. Each case, however, must be considered on its own facts. Whereas in K.A.A. Raja (supra) a proposal was made to acquire 52.88 acres of 21 cardamom plantation, in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. (supra), the proposal was to acquire land where rubber trees were grown. It is, therefore, in our opinion, impermissible to take recourse to surmises and conjectures across the board that even the agriculturist of a remote village whose lands are being acquired for undertaking an irrigation project, would take recourse thereto.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next