Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing K D Sundar Raj vs The Union Of India on 27 March, 2008

M. Narasimhaiah vs Unknown on 13 February, 2017

The Claimant No.2 Smt. Rajani is entitled for compensation towards measuring 1500 sq.feet in site No.7 out of Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra village, Yeshawanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The Claimant No.1 is entitled for enhanced compensation for 20667 sq. feet in site No.7 out of Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra village, Yeshawanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is made it clear that the Claimant No.1 is not entitled for enhanced compensation amount for 31 2880 sq. feet which is reserved for formation of road as per Ex.P-16 in Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra village. The Claimant No.1 and 2 are entitled for all the statutory benefits as contemplated under L.A. Act 1894 and also decision of the Hon'ble Apex court (Sundar Vs. Union of India) reported in (2001)7 SCC 211. The Claimant No.1 and 2 shall execute indemnity bond to the extent of compensation amount which are entitled to receive the compensation amount so as to redeposit the claim amount in the event of any claim made by any other Claimants with one surety for the like sum. Draw An Award Accordingly. C/c.II Addl.C.C. & Spl Judge, Bangalore.
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Somappa S/O Shivabasappa Melligeri vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 8 August, 2017

8. In respect of the first petition i.e. W.P.No.105566/2016, agreement was recorded by the Lok Adalath on 5.4.2007 whereby the market value was agreed and fixed at Rs.10,25,000/- per acre in respect of the grape growing land and at the rate of Rs.5,75,000/- per acre in respect of the pomegranate growing land and the rate of 13 Rs.4,13,820/- for the remaining areas and treated the same as land with non agricultural potential. Apart from determining the compensation at the rate of per acre of land the parties have also agreed for other statutory benefits. It was also agreed between the parties that interest shall be calculated as per the law laid by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Sundar - vs - Union of India reported in 2001 (7) SCC 211.
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 6 - G Narendar - Full Document

Lakshmaiah S/O Late. Annayyappa vs ) Land Acquisition Officer on 8 August, 2018

IBRAHIM Digitally signed by IBRAHIM FEERASAB BIDARI DN: cn=IBRAHIM FEERASAB FEERASAB BIDARI,ou=HIGH COURT,o=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN BIDARI Date: 2018.08.11 13:59:30 IST 27 L.A.C. No.101/2001 06.03.2017 Judgment pronounced in open court (Vide separate order) ORDER The Reference petitions referred u/s.18 of Land Acquisition Act, are hereby partly allowed. The actual Market value of the acquired properties which are shown in para No.3 of page No.3 of judgment is determined @ 641/- sq.feet. Apart from this: In L.A.C. No.270/2005 an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- is enhanced i.e., from Rs.2,51,256/- to Rs.3,76,256/-. In L.A.C. No.266/2005 an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is enhanced i.e., from Rs.61,705/- to Rs.1,61,705/- . In L.A.C. No.267/2005 an amount of Rs.90,000/- is enhanced i.e., from Rs.1,05,986/- to Rs.1,95,986/-. 28 L.A.C. No.101/2001 The claimants are entitled for all statutory benefits as contemplated u/s.23(2), 23(1-A), u/s.28 of L.A. Act 1894 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court (Sundar Vs. Union of India) reported in (2001)7 SCC 211. Draw separate Award in each case accordingly. Original Judgment be kept in LAC No.270/2005 and copies of the same be kept in LAC No. 265/2005, LAC No.266/2005, L.A.C. No.267/2005 and LAC No.268/2005. (G.BASAVARAJA) XLVI ACC & SJ & Special Judge for C.B.I. Holding C/C of II ACC & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
Bangalore District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Karnataka Housing Board vs Mr Derrick D Sa on 16 August, 2018

09. Further it is submitted at Bar during the course of arguments from the side of J.Dr. No.2 that the interest is to be payable on solatium only after passing of the judgment as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sundar - Vs - Union of India. But as far as the ratio laid down in the decision relied upon by the J.Dr. No.2 the contention taken by J.Dr. No.2 not appears to be proper. Hence, under the circumstances the decree holder is entitled to interest on solatium also. Therefore for the aforesaid reasons and the discussion made thereon this Court is of the opinion that the objection preferred by the J.Dr. No.2 in respect of the Memo of calculation preferred by the decree holders holds no water and does not sustained. Hence this Court is of the opinion that the Memo of calculations preferred by the decree holder is to be considered.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V Kothari - Full Document
1   2 3 Next