Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Basant Kumar And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 September, 1996

Geb vs Heirs Of Mayaram Sukhram, Anandram ... on 18 September, 2018

23. As stated earlier, the Reference Court has awarded compensation at the same rate of 1,19,370/- per hectare, though the Court itself had divided the lands in question into three groups. From the evidence on record, it clearly transpires that a vast area of land was acquired from Village Chorania and Bhalgamda, Taluka Limbdi, District Surendranagar as per the Notification under Section 4 published on 14.4.1988. It can not be gainsaid that as per the legal position settled by the Supreme Court, even in the same Village, no two lands command same market value. The lands appurtenant to the main road of national highway command higher market value and as the location goes backward, the market value of internal land would be less Page 36 of 44 C/FA/1004/2002 CAV JUDGMENT even for the same kind of land. When the lands in a Village spread over the vast extent, all lands can not be and should not be classified as possessing the same market value. The burden is always on the claimants to prove the market value. Beneficial reference of the decision in case of Basant Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) be made in this regard. As discussed herein above, there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that all lands acquired under the same Notification dated 14.4.1988 had the same location, and possessed the similar potentiality and similar advantages. On the contrary, as transpiring from the map Exh.115, it appears that some of the lands were located nearby the State highway, and the others in the internal side.
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

J Raghavendra vs The Special Land Acquisition on 1 December, 2020

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the market value of the land in question has been determined by the Reference Court on the basis of evidence adduced before it. It is further submitted that the appellants have not adduced any evidence to prove the fact that the land in question was converted for residential as well as industrial purposes. It is also submitted that the deduction on account of developmental charges to the extent of 47.89% is just and proper. In support of aforesaid submissions, 8 reliance has been placed on decisions in 'SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. ETC. VS. SIDDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI AND ORS. ETC., APPEAL (CIVIL) 2587-88 OF 1994, 'THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITIION OFFICER AND ANOTHER VS. SRI.SIDDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI AND OTHRES ETC, S.L.P.(C)NO.6797/1994, and 'BASANT KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS', (1996) 11 SCC 542.
Karnataka High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Trimbak Joma Thakur Deceased Through ... on 21 June, 2007

It was vehemently argued by learned Counsel for the claimants that the acquired land is surrounded by developed areas, is abutting the State Highway/main roads and is within the municipal limits, as such the land abutting the roads should be granted higher compensation. Keeping in view the principles of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basant Kaur and Ors. v. Union of India 1997 LACC 17, I consider it appropriate to grant different compensation to the claimants whose lands are contiguous to and are adjoining the main roads. The lands which are located within 100 metres (beyond the land falling under the scheduled roads area) of the main roads metal led Kaithal Kurukshetra, new bye-pass and Kaithal Karnal roads, would be granted higher compensation their lands being termed as group A lands. While, all other lands would be categorized as group B lands. It is clear from the record that the lands were acquired for common purpose namely, development of sector 19 Part II and Part III of Kaithal town, vide notification of the same date. Thus, to divide the lands on sector basis will not be reasonable or fair. It is a known fact that the lands which abut the main roads or the State highways fetch a higher price than the lands which are inside even in the developed area. Another factor which has weighed with the Court in granting different compensation to the claimants of group B lands is that major part of the lands for Sector 19 Part III abuts the railway line as well as the minor canal in sector 19 Part II. The lands which are away from the Highway or the main roads, thus, cannot command the same price. Various sale deeds produced on record, though may not be admissible otherwise also indicate different value in various part of the acquired land or the lands adjacent thereto. By applying the principles of permissible and reasonable guess work, the lands falling in group B would receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000 less than the one awarded to group A land i.e. Rs. 1,83,478 per acre.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 8 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next