Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 165 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Raghubans Narain Singh vs The Uttar Pradesh Government Through ... on 23 September, 1966

A.S. Krishnamurthi vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 3 January, 1970

16. The further questions are whether such interest should be granted whether claimed by the interested person or not; and whether even if claimed this Court is bound to grant it notwithstanding the non-payment of Court-fee thereon in accordance with law. According to the Supreme Court in Raghubans Narain Singh v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (1967) 2 S.C.J. 214 : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 465, the grant of interest under Section 28 of the Act raises a question of law and it can be considered by the High Court even when the referred Court has not granted the same.
Madras High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Shrimant Govindrao Narayanrao ... on 3 February, 1983

In fact, but for Raghubans Narain v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 465, we would be inclined to think that the power under section 28 should not be read in any way differently from the power under section 34, notwithstanding the use of the word 'may' in section 28. Anyway, the discretion contemplated by section 28 is judicial discretion which naturally cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Once it is found that a claimant is entitled to a sum of money and for its payment on or before the date of delivery of possession and there is a default, he will, more often than not be entitled to interest thereon. There may, however, in a few cases, be circumstances which may indicate that the claimant is not entitled to interest. It is perhaps for this reason the Supreme Court was inclined to think that the power under section 28 was discretionary. Even so, we think that in the absence of special reasons, where excess compensation has been awarded by the Court, interest thereupon cannot reasonably be denied. In our opinion, interest under section 28 is not awarded as part of the compensation for acquisition of land, but only as interest on the amount of compensation for the said land, which the owner is entitled to payment when possession is taken but which the Collector has failed to pay on the due date."
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 7 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Chandramallika Suppliers Private ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 October, 2016

In Digamber & Ors v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors, reported in 2013 (14) SCC 406, it was held, inter alia, to the effect that the acquisition of the land - whether for commercial purpose or not - should be the relevant criteria for determining the market value while applying the principles laid down in Atma Singh (supra). In other words, for ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - B Somadder - Full Document

The Union Of India (Uoi) vs Lalit Kumar Mukherjee And Ors. on 6 May, 1992

In support of his argument he has referred to and relied upon the decision in the case of Raghubans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government (supra). In the reported case the District Judge held that Referring Claimant is entitled to interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, but allowed interest at 3% per annum observing that since the acquisition was for educational institution, interest at that rate was proper. The Supreme Court has held that it is the discretion of the Court whether it would allow interest or not, that once such discretion has been exercised, there is no further discretion and that interest if awarded has to be awarded at the rate as mentioned in Section 28 of the said Act. So in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court we hold that once the Arbitrator has exercised his discretion to allow interest on the amount of compensation, he has no further discretion and that the interest as directed to be paid by him is to be paid at the rate as provided in Section 28 of the Land Acquisition. Act. It has not been disputed that at the relevant time the rate of interest as payable under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was 6% per annum.
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Mehtar And Anr. vs The Collector, Durg And Ors. on 19 August, 1974

12. Our examination of the transactions proved by the Government was equally unfruitful. Surprisingly. the Officer-in-charge of the litigation, chose such transactions which were effected by or in favour of the claimants and it was reasonable to expect that the claimant s would not speak anything against their own interest but would rather endeavour to demolish the Government's case. This is exactly what happened. The claimant-witness was not inclined to produce his sale-deed, compelled the Government to lead secondary evidence and instead of supporting the transaction to be one of sale, something was said to construe it as a conditional mortgage. The trial Court was. therefore, inclined to reject all the sale-deeds.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - A P Sen - Full Document

Chandramallika Suppliers Private ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 October, 2016

In Digamber & Ors v. State Of Maharashtra & Ors, reported in 2013 (14) SCC 406, it was held, inter alia, to the effect that the acquisition of the land - whether for commercial purpose or not - should be the relevant criteria for determining the market value while applying the principles laid down in Atma Singh (supra). In other words, for ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - B Somadder - Full Document

Balbir Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc on 22 January, 2018

"5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably 9 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 04-02-2018 05:59:55 ::: R.F.A. No.3374 of 2015 and other connected cases 10 capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. Collector, Raigarh v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 472, Raghubans Narain Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Government, through Collector of Bijnor, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 465, Govt. and Administrator General, W.B. v. Collector Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A G Masih - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Dhanwanti Devi & Ors on 21 August, 1996

In support thereof, Shri Vaidyanathan placed reliance on the ratio decidendi in R.B. Lala Narsingh Das vs. Secy. of State for India [AIR 1925 PC 91 at 92], Raghubans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government through Collector of Bijnor [(1967) 2 SCR 489 at 497], Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [(1977) 2 SCR 682 at 684-85], Birminghan City Corporation. v. West Midland Baptis [Trust] Association (Incorporated] [1969 (682 at 684-85], Birminghan City Corporation. v. West Midland Baptis [Trust] Association [Trust] Association (Incorporated] [1969 (3) All ER 172], Commissioner of Sales Tax, J&K & ors. v. pine chemicals Led.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Saradhambal on 24 June, 2015

Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. See Collector v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur, Raghubans Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt. and Administrator General, W.B. v. Collector Varanasi.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - T Mathivanan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next