Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 101 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Chandrashekhar & Ors vs Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer on 8 July, 2009

Vasant S/O Laxmanrao Dalal vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 19 June, 2019

10. It is clear from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre and Chandrashekhar and others (Cited supra) that land owner need not to ::: Uploaded on - 24/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:49:18 ::: fa 604.2012 judgment.odt 7 specify the amount of compensation. Even the amount of compensation claimed is less than the actual compensation arrived then, Reference Court shall have full power to determine the compensation and deficit court fee can be recovered from the land owner.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - M G Giratkar - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Manikanta Bai on 3 November, 2023

9] Counsel for the respondents has relied upon certain decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported as (1988) 3 SCC 751; Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Nookala Rajamallu reported as (2003) 12 SCC 334; Trishala Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported as (2011) 6 SCC 47; A.P. Housing Board Vs. K. Manohar Reddy, reported as (2010) 12 SCC 707; Ravinder Kumar Goel Vs. State of Haryana reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 147, C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer reported as (2009) 11 SCC 75; Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2016) 14 SCC 279; Ambya Kalya Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2011) 9 SCC 325; Chandrashekhar Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported as (2009) 14 SCC 441; Maharunnisa Vs. Commr & LAO, reported as (2009) 9 SCC 750. 10] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Abhyankar - Full Document

Indraj (Deceased) Through Lr???S And ... vs Union Of India And Anr. on 1 July, 2010

In support of his plea that once the court had taken a view that the claimants were entitled to payment of enhanced compensation, they should not be denied the same on technical grounds, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrashekhar & Ors. vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer reported as 2009 VII AD (SC) 829 was cited by the counsel for the appellants.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - H Kohli - Full Document

Girimallappa vs Spl.Laq Officer & Anr on 16 July, 2012

12. The question does arise as to whether such a vague prayer can be entertained by the court. The memo of appeal before the High Court does not even reveal as to what was his demand. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of this Court in Chandrashekhar & Ors. v. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2009 SC 3012, wherein after considering the earlier judgments, this Court held that court should not be too technical in awarding the compensation in case there is a shortfall of court fees. The said judgment is not an authority on the proposition advanced before us in this petition that court is bound to enhance the amount of compensation though no specific amount is demanded by the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rohit Bansal , Agra vs Department Of Income Tax on 27 July, 2009

6 I have given careful thought to the 'reasons recorded' in the light of submission made by the appellant, view of the Assessing Officer and judicial pronouncements discussed hereinabove. Assessing Officer has justified his action on the strength of "information" received from the Investigation Wing. In view of the challenge made by the appellant that there exist no material with the Assessing Officer to have issued notice under section 148 and the notice, as issued to him lacks jurisdiction, it becomes imperative for the Assessing Officer to have atleast referred to material part of the "information" either in the reason recorded or in the assessment order. Though, it is the sole satisfaction of the Assessing Officer to initiate re- assessment proceedings but that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is open to judicial scrutiny. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Asa John Devinathan 8r. Ors Vs. Addl. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 270 (Mad), where in the Hon'ble High Court observed that "the finding of the ITO on jurisdictional facts cannot be taken as sacrosanct. It was further observed by Hon'ble Court that the assumption of jurisdiction on the part of the ITO has to be established on the facts and if there are no relevant facts, the Revenue cannot seek to get away with the plea that the matter of jurisdiction is dependent on the 8 facts and the facts are beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. It was further observed by the Hon'ble High Court that though sufficiency of the grounds is beyond the scrutiny of the Courts, the rational connection between the materials and the reopening of the assessment is justifiable. There is no immunity from scrutiny by Courts or appellate authorities for the reasons recorded by the ITO for reopening the assessment. There is no disability on the part of the assessee from going into the question of the relevance of the material that was available to the ITO at the time when he sought to reopen the assessment. It is necessary to bear in mind the fact that in order to consider the validity of the jurisdiction on the ground of relevance of the materials available to the ITO at the time of initiation of the proceedings it is only those materials that were available to him that would have to be looked into, and not any further material that came to light in the course of reassessment proceedings themselves.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Thermal Power Corporation ... vs State Of U.P. & Others on 8 April, 2015

70. Per contra, the claimants have sought enhancement and contended that Reference Court found market value of the acquired land as Rs. 67/- per sq. yard on the basis of registered agreement for sale and that being so, there was no occasion to apply for 35% deduction. There should not be any deduction whatsoever or at the best ought not have exceeded 10%. They further contended that mere fact that claimants have requested for compensation @ Rs. 50/- per sq. yard would not dis-entitle them from higher rate of compensation, if market value of land acquired is found higher. Reliance is placed on behalf of the claimants on Chandrashekhar and others vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2009) 14 SCC 44, Maharunnisa and another vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Bijapur, (2009) SCC 750 and Satish and others vs. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 14 SCC 758.
Allahabad High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gorakshan Sanshtha Thr Its Secretary, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 19 September, 2018

17. However, the above Authority is distinguishable on facts for the simple reason that in the case of "Chandrashekhar" (supra), 144 Acres tract of land was acquired for development of ::: Uploaded on - 19/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2018 02:21:57 ::: (11) First Appeal No. 697/2017 large residential layout. However, in the case at hand, comparatively small piece of 10 Acres land is acquired for construction of some Transit and Pool Quarters. So, in the case at hand, for development of the acquired land, except the area required for development of internal road, no more infrastructural development needs to be carried out. Therefore, considering the small scale construction of quarters in the acquired land, at the most 20% amount can be deducted from the market value of the acquired land. So also, as the acquired land is not adjoining to any road, like the land in sale instance, 10 % more amount can be deducted from the market value. However, the size of land under sale instance is not comparatively very less than the area of the acquired land. Therefore, no amount can be deducted from the market value of the land towards large size of the acquired land. Therefore, I hold that at the most 30 % amount can be deducted from the market value of the acquired land.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kamla Bai on 3 November, 2023

9] Counsel for the respondents has relied upon certain decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported as (1988) 3 SCC 751; Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Nookala Rajamallu reported as (2003) 12 SCC 334; Trishala Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported as (2011) 6 SCC 47; A.P. Housing Board Vs. K. Manohar Reddy, reported as (2010) 12 SCC 707; Ravinder Kumar Goel Vs. State of Haryana reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 147, C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer reported as (2009) 11 SCC 75; Bhikulal Kedarmal Goenka Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2016) 14 SCC 279; Ambya Kalya Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2011) 9 SCC 325; Chandrashekhar Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported as (2009) 14 SCC 441; Maharunnisa Vs. Commr & LAO, reported as (2009) 9 SCC 750. 10] Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Abhyankar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next