The Land Acquisition Officer Cum vs Ramaswamy on 4 June, 2012
In a judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (2) LW 267 (The Special Tahsildar (LA) ..vs.. Rathinareddi), it has been held as follows:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)The Special Tahsildar vs Velusamy on 22 January, 2007
14. Another Division Bench of this Court in the Special Tahsildar
(Land Acquisition), Krishna Water Supply Project Unit - 3, Tiruvallur Vs.
Rathinareddi reported in 2003 2 LW 267 has held that the Court must
always take the sale transaction which fetched the maximum price and
which is most advantageous to the land owners should be taken into account
after referring to the judgment in Sri Ram M.Vijayalakshmamma Rao
Bahadur Ranee of Vuyyur referred to supra. While doing so, the Division
Bench observed as follows:-
Sri Venkatachalapathi Annachathiram ... vs The Special Tahsildar on 3 December, 2020
(iii) The Special Tahsildar (LA) v. Rathinareddi
[2003(2) LW 267];
Union Of India vs K.Gayatri Devi on 10 February, 2010
7.It is a well settled principle of law that while fixing the valuation the Court will have to take into consideration of the value fixed in a sale deed which is beneficial and advantageous to the claimants is to be taken into consideration. Hence the Reference Court has correctly took into consideration the transaction fetching the maximum price and most advantageous to the claimants. While fixing the valuation the Court will have to sit in the armchair of the seller and the intending purchaser and decide the market value. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in (2003) 1 M.L.J. 781 [THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KRISHNA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT UNIT-3, TIRUVALLUR v. RATHINAREDDI] has held that it is incumbent on the Court to consider the transaction fetching the maximum price and which is most advantageous to the claimant while fixing the compensation for the acquired land.
The Special Tahsildar (La) vs R.Srinivasan on 6 July, 2009
9. It is also to be seen that it is not the case of the appellant that
Ex.A9 land is far away from the acquired lands. While fixing the valuation, the
Court has to sit in the armchair of the willing seller and purchaser and decide
the valuation. While fixing the valuation on the basis of comparable sale
transaction, the transaction fetching the maximum price and most advantageous to
the claimants have to be taken into consideration. It has been held by Hon'ble
Division Bench in 2003 1 MLJ 781 (The Special Tahsildar (LA), Krishna Water
Supply Project Unit-3, Tiruvallur vs. Rathinareddi), that while fixing the
valuation, the value beneficial to the claimants should be taken into
consideration. Therefore, taking into consideration of the above said facts,
Ex.A9 will have to be taken into consideration.
J.Bhavani vs The District Revenue Officer on 4 September, 2017
12. This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in The Special Tahsildar (La) Vs. Rathinareddi reported in (2003) 1 MLJ 781 in para 10 of the said judgment the Division Bench has observed as follows :
The Union Of India vs K.Rajeswari on 27 September, 2024
A
Division Bench of this Court in The Special Tahsildar (LA), Krishna Water
Supply Project Unit-3, Tiruvallur, vs. Rathinareddi reported in 2003-2-L.W.
267, has also reiterated the position of law that the land owner would be
entitled to the compensation fixed on the basis of the exemplar sale deed which
reflects the highest value. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that
the lands in subject matter of this appeal are situate very close to the temple and
as such, the learned trial Judge was right in granting a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per
Are.
The Special Tahsildar (Adw)/ vs Narikuravan @ Chinnasamy on 6 November, 2024
Reliance is also placed on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The Special Tahsildar
(LA), Krishna Water Supply Project Unit-3, Tiruvallur Vs. Rathinareddi
reported in 2003-2-L.W.-267 in support of the said contention.
1