Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing M.K. Chengalroya Chetti vs The Special Deputy Collector For Land ... on 24 July, 1952

Chirala Buchi Reddi vs Satti Savitramma on 17 August, 1960

LJ 400 : (AIR 1940 Mad 356) and the observations of Subba Rao, C. J. (as he then was) in K. C. Nambiar v. The State of Madras, (and not M. K. Chengalroya Chetti v. Special Deputy Collector, , as referred to in 1960 Andh. LT 357), and reiterated by him in (FB) Sanjeeva Row Nayudu J. dissented from the observations made in ILR 55 Mad 676: (AIR ''1932 .Mad 664) as regards the binding and operative character of the decision in I.L.R. 12 Mad. 168 (F.B.).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ve. A. Vairavan Chettiar By Power Of ... vs Mayuram Municipal Council By Its ... on 17 February, 1973

The scheme obviously has to be financed. To recoup the expenses which has to be spent for all the improvements contemplated under the scheme, a right is given to the Municipality to demand contribution for such a public cause from the owners of properties inside the scheme. The betterment contribution effectually is to reimburse the Corporation or the Municipality towards the expenses which obviously it has to incur in the making of the scheme. Subba Rao, J., as he then was in Chengalvaroya Chetti v. Special Deputy Collector , held that a notification published under Sub-section (5) is conclusive evidence that the scheme has been duly made and sanctioned. The foundational concept of the levy is not a fee or a tax as it is ordinarily understood. It is not a fee because it is not periodical nor is it referable to any periodical services to be rendered by the Corporation or the Municipality to the property owners. It is not a tax because all the citizens are not called upon to suffer the charge. It is a peculiar demand veiled in social economy and characterised by practical development. It is a contribution for a common purpose demanded by a statutory agency created under the Act. I have already justified the demand on the ground that it is in any event a demand arising from legislative mandate and which legislation has to be sustained at any rate under the concurrent list -- item 20 therein.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

G.V. Gopalacharya, Power Of Attorney ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 December, 1977

5. On a review of the authorities, we are satisfied that no hard and fast rule could be laid down in the matter of arrival of the multiple for purpose of capitalisation of the net annual rental value of a composite property subjected to compulsory acquisition. The situation of the property, the age of the building, its potential and all other surrounding circumstances have to be borne in mind before a multiple is thought of for capitalisation. A mechanical adoption of the rate per cent on gilt edged securities as the guide for fixing the multiple or an adherence to the conversion value of such gilt edged securities for purposes of arriving again at the years of purchase is not always safe, Each case has to be decided on its own merits. The court below noticed that in the year 1964 on gilt edged securities 3 per cent interest was payable and that the conversion value of the same was Rs. 65-80. In the absence of any other evidence regarding the rate per cent of interest referred to can be taken as a base for calculation of the number of years' purchase. The lower court adopted the multiple of 25. The learned counsel for the appellant expects that the multiple should be 33-1/3. Having regard to the age of the building and the cracks found thereon, we are unable to accept that the net annual yield should be multiplied by 33-1/3. We agree with Miss Vimala the learned counsel for the Government that a deduction has to be made towards the location of the property, its age etc. We fix this multiple at 27 1/2 times the net yield. We are constrained to fix this multiple because the Land Acquisition Officer himself thought that the multiple of 22 was reasonable basing his conclusion on the conversion value of the securities in 1964. But as we are of the view that the conversion value of such securities can only furnish additional hypothesis to arrive at the number of years of purchase and ought not to form the sole guide for evaluation and as the method of valuation in all such cases is not totally bereft of guess work, we adopt the multiple of 27 1/2 times having regard to the circumstances of the case. The net annual rental yield of Rs. 4967-90 would be multiplied by 27 1/2 times and that amount shall be awarded to the claimant. The claimant would also be entitled to 15 per cent solatium on the additional compensation given by us. The claimant is also entitled to interest at 4 per cent on the additional compensation awarded from the date of possession i.e. 18-6-1973 till the date of deposit. The compensation shall be worked out as stated above. The excess compensation shall be deposited in court to the credit of the land acquisition case. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1