Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 78 (4.21 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan & Ors on 13 March, 1986

The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Mahesh Vadilal Gandhi And Ors. on 24 November, 1992

In para 12 of the aforesaid judgment, it was observed by the Apex Court that payment of 100 times the net monthly income i.e. 8 1/3 times the net annual income from the property could not be considered too low having regard to the rate of interest on safe investments prevailing from 1976-77. The observation made by the Apex Court in this case indicate that there is nothing wrong in applying capitalization method where acquired property was let out almost fully and fetched rental income. I must clarify that I am not applying basis of compensation being fixed on footing of 100 months rent in this case in view of the fact that the Amending Act is not attracted in this case. However, the general observation made by the Apex Court in respect of application of capitalized method as one of recognised method of valuation are of considerable significance for the purpose of deciding L.A.R. No. 105 of 1975. I have relied on the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai only for limited purpose as aforesaid.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chamundi Hotel (P) Ltd. And Ors. vs State And Ors. on 31 March, 1997

In State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai, , the Supreme Court while considering the Constitutional validity of Maharashtra Housing and Development Act, which dealt with the acquisition of the land held that as the land was being acquired for the purposes of being developed and distributed amongst the people as house sites, the statute had the protection of Article 39(b) of the Constitution. Regarding 'distribution' the Court observed, "it also provides for reserving land for providing public amenities without which people cannot live there. Community centres, shopping complexes, parks, roads, drains, play grounds, are all necessary for civic life and these amenities are enjoyed by all. That is also a kind of distribution." In Ranganath Roddy's case7, it was observed, to 'distribute' even in its simple dictionary meaning, is to allot, to divided into classes or into groups and distribution embraces arrangement, classification, placement, disposition, apportionment, the way in which items, a quantity or the like is divided or apportioned; the system of dispersing goods throughout a community".
Karnataka High Court Cites 192 - Cited by 1 - R P Sethi - Full Document

Dilipbhai Kashiram Valvi vs Union Of India on 7 July, 2025

"19. It is well settled that in order that a law avail of the protection of Article 31-C, it is not necessary that any declaration be made in that behalf. (See State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan [State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan, (1986) 2 SCC 516] SCC at p. 530.) It is also important to remember that in order that a law be shielded by Article 31-C, the said law must have a direct and rational nexus with the principles contained in Article 39(b).
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Pravinbhai Babubhai @ Vrajlal Solanki vs Union Of India on 7 July, 2025

"19. It is well settled that in order that a law avail of the protection of Article 31-C, it is not necessary that any declaration be made in that behalf. (See State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan [State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan, (1986) 2 SCC 516] SCC at p. 530.) It is also important to remember that in order that a law be shielded by Article 31-C, the said law must have a direct and rational nexus with the principles contained in Article 39(b).
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Valjibhai Shamjibhai Ghelani vs The State Of Gujarat Thr' Secretary And ... on 7 March, 2007

7. The last contention that the petitioner whose only source of livelihood is income derived from the lands acquired in the instant case, is not rehabilitated or offered alternative lands and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings should be quashed, is devoid of merits. It may be mentioned that this plea is not raised by the petitioner in the petition but is raised during the course of hearing of the petition. However, this point has been considered by the Supreme Court in the decisions rendered in (1) Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. ; (2) New Reviera Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 731; (3) Bhatt Indravadan Nathalal v. State of Gujarat 2004 (2) GLH 224l and (4) State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan and Ors. and negatived.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - J M Panchal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next