Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased) ... vs State Of Gujarat on 8 August, 1989

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

From a reading of the above judgment of the Full Bench it appears that the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai v. State of Gujarat (13) and Collector, Raigarh v. Harisingh Thakur (14), referred to supra, have not been brought to the notice of the Full Bench. The view expressed by the Supreme Court in those decisions is that such a document which has not been proved either by the vendee or vendor or any person connected with it cannot be relied upon.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 383 - Full Document

Harishkumar vs State on 25 July, 2008

14. In the above facts, it was submitted by learned senior counsel Mr.J.R.Nanavati, appearing with Mr.B.G.Jani for the petitioner, that the High Court, on its administrative side, ought not to have solely relied upon the vague and ambiguous observations of the President of the Industrial Court and with objective examination of the above data, the High Court could have confirmed in service Ms.C.L.Mehta as well as the petitioner, particularly when Mr.N.N.Patni was confirmed in service. Therefore, it was rightly and properly found by this Court in C.L.Mehta v. State of Gujarat (supra) that termination of her service was arbitrary, discriminatory and without considering the overall service record. It was stated at the bar that the decision in her case was carried in appeal and the Hon'ble Apex Court had declined to interfere.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

Deputy Collector vs Lalubhai Keshavbhai on 4 May, 1999

May be that the market value in case of small plots in a developed area is more than that in the case of the acquisition of a large area, but that by itself cannot be a decisive factor to ignore the market value of identical l and in the areas in the vicinity. On behalf of the appellants, reference has been made to Exhs. 86 to 100. No competent witness was examined to prove the sale instances through these documents and it st ands concluded on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1989 SC 2051 that unless conversant and competent witness is examined to prove the sale instances, such sale deeds cannot be taken into consideration. As against it, the claimants had examined the concerned witnesses in support of the sale instances through the sale deeds relied upon by them. On the basis of these documents it is clear that the l ands were sold at the rate of Rs. 150/- to Rs. 488/- per sq.mt. with reference to Exhs. 35 to Exh. 40 during the period 1988 to 1990. It is also clear from the evidence that the agricultural l ands of other farmers was acquired for this very Scheme and the compensation was granted at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq.mt. in respect of agricultural l ands and Rs. 150/- per sq.mt. in respect of non agricultural l ands. The only argument, which has been raised against it is that this l and in respect of which compensation was granted at the rate of Rs. 50/- and Rs. 150/- per sq.mt. is situated in a developed area whereas the l and under acquisition in this case is outside the municipal limits and it is on account of the difference of important location that this example could not be made use of by the claimants in their favour. Once it has come on the evidence that the l and acquired in the instant case is situated only at a distance of about one and half to two Kms., the fact of such a short distance would not render the two l ands to be wholly uncomparable. The Reference Court has dealt with this question in detail and has observed that these l ands are also situated within the radius of Amreli city and further that the prices, which are increasing from 1988-89 onwards, have also to be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the rate/price. Notification in respect of the l ands acquired was made under S. 4 in the year 1990, there is large scale increase (in percentage wise) of prices of l and day by day, there are possibilities of the development of Amreli city and simply because the National Highway is not passing through from or no direct rail facilities are there, it cannot be said that no development is likely to take place. The Reference Court has also observed that three times difference has been kept between the price of the agricultural and non agricultural l and per sq.mt. In some of the cases, in which the compensation for agricultural l and has been granted at the rate of Rs. 50/per sq.mt. and Rs. 150/- per sq.mt. for non agricultural l and, are of the year 1988 whereas in this case the Notification under S. 4 was issued in 1990 and even the Departmental witness No. 2 i.e. Kaushik Maganlal, Deputy Colector, Exh. 101 has admitted in his cross-examination that the documents of sale instances are of dates earlier than the date of the issue of the Notification under S. 4 in this case. We find that the Reference Court had on analysis of the evidence as a whole and also noticing that the approved Government Valuer, who was examined as a witness, had found that the agricultural l and in question was worth Rs. 100/- per sq.mt. and for the l and on the other bank of the river the compensation had been paid at the rate of Rs. 50/per sq.mt., has fixed the rate at Rs. 75/- per sq.m.t in these cases and on the basis of the consideration of the evidence in its entirety, it cannot be said that the rate fixed by the Reference Court is unjustifiable or excessive and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Reference Court does not warrant any interference.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - R M Doshit - Full Document

Bhikhabhai Rudabhai Dabhi vs State Of Gujarat on 19 December, 2018

In view of reliance placed on the judgment referred to above we have gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant we are not prepared to accept the submission that the issue in the present appeal is governed by the ratio laid down in the above said judgment. We are of the view that having regard to the fact situation both the judgments referred to above would not support the case of the appellant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Hamadbhai Fajubhai Khojjada vs State Of Gujarat on 22 February, 2019

In view of reliance placed on the judgment referred to above we have gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant we are not prepared to accept the submission that the issue in the present appeal is governed by the ratio laid down in the above said judgment. We are of the view that having regard to the fact situation both the judgments referred to above would not support the case of the appellant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Salim Ismilebhai Baloch vs The State Of Gujarat on 15 January, 2020

In view of reliance placed on the judgment referred to above we have gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant we are not prepared to accept the submission that the issue in the present appeal is governed by the ratio laid down in the above said judgment. We are of Page 8 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER the view that having regard to the fact situation both the judgments referred to above would not support the case of the appellant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Bambhania Govindbhai Hamirbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 15 January, 2020

In view of reliance placed on the judgment referred to above we have gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant we are not prepared to accept the submission that the issue in the present appeal is governed by the ratio laid down in the above said judgment. We are of the view that having regard to Page 2 of 10 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:18:00 IST 2020 C/SCA/10562/2019 JUDGMENT the fact situation both the judgments referred to above would not support the case of the appellant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Manubhai @ Punabhai Vashrambhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 31 January, 2020

In view of reliance placed on the judgment referred to above we have gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant we are not prepared to accept the submission that the issue in the present appeal is governed by the ratio laid down in the above said judgment. We are of the view that having regard to the fact situation both the judgments referred to above would not support the case of the appellant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next