Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (1.15 seconds)
Documents citing Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran,(Ujjain ... vs Tarachand & Anr. Etc on 12 July, 1996

The State Of Maharashtra vs Smt. Bhimabai Bhika Gondal And Ors. on 20 September, 2007

21. The above principle was also in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tarachand's case (supra) where it was held that the Court was precluded from awarding compensation beyond the amount claimed by the party and that awarding in excess thereof would be illegal. In both these judgments the contentions raised by the claimants were duly examined by the Court and were found to be inconsequential.
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - S Kumar - Full Document

Harbans vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 September, 2000

13. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran (Ujjain Development Authority) v. Tarachand and another, JT 1996 (7) SC 206, wherein (heir Lordships observed that even after the deletion of sub-section (2) of Section 22 by amending Act 68 of 1984. It would be always open to a party to claim a particular amount and having claimed at that rate, the Court should not allow compensation higher than the amount claimed by him with the following observations :
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - O Bhatt - Full Document

Govind Kanu Madhavi (Since Deceased, ... vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer on 29 April, 2004

"Therefore, the provisions of Section 25 as amended would apply to those acquisitions which were made subsequent to 24.9.1984. on behalf of the state, our attention was also invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran (Ujjain Development Authority) v/s Tarachand another . The Apex Court therein noted that under Section 25(2) of the Act prior to the Amendment, the Court was prohibited to enhance the compensation in excess of the amount claimed pursuant to the notices issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. since Sub-section (2) of Section 25 was deleted by Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the limitation on the exercise of the power of the Court was taken away. Nonetheless, it would always be open to a party to claim a particular amount and having claimed at the rate, the question arises whether the Court would grant compensation higher than that claimed by the party ? Answering the issue the Court observed that, it would be obvious that when a party claims compensation at a particular rate, he assesses the market value of the land at that particular rate and seeks compensation on that basis. Having assessed the compensation at that particular rate, the question emerges whether the Court could grant higher compensation than was assessed by the party. The Court held that in such situation the Court could not grant compensation than what was sought for by the party.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P V Kakade - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra (Through The ... vs Smt. Kamali Keshav Mhatre And Ors. on 31 March, 2004

Therefore, the provisions of Section 25 as amended would apply to those acquisitions which were made subsequent to 24.9.1984. On behalf of the State, our attention was also invited to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran, (Ujjain Development Authority) v. Tarachand and Anr. . The Apex Court therein noted that under Section 25(2) of the Act prior to the Amendment, the Court was prohibited to enhance the compensation in excess of the amount claimed pursuant to the notices issued under Section 9 and 10 of the Act. Since Sub-section (2) of Section 25 was deleted by Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the limitation on the exercise of the power of the court was taken away. Nonetheless, it would always be open to a party to claim a particular amount and having claimed at the rate, the question arises whether the court could grant compensation higher than that claimed by the party? Answering the issue the court observed that it would be obvious that when a party claims compensation at a particular rate, he assesses the market value of the land at that particular rate and seeks compensation on that basis. Having assessed the compensation at that particular rate, the question emerges whether the court could grant higher compensation than was assessed by the party. The court held that in such situation the court could not grant compensation then what was sought for by the party.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - F I Rebello - Full Document

The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Cements ... vs Shanmughavel Chettiar And 19 Others on 23 January, 2001

13. All the claimants, in their claim statements, have uniformly and clearly claimed that the patta land is far way, whereas the adjacent land in S. No. 522/1 measuring and extent of 1.75 acres has been sold for Rs.19,690 through Document No.49/84. Thus, the claimants themselves have assessed the market value of their lands at Rs.11,000. Of course, they claim that it is only the surface value. On the other hand, they also admit that adjoining land has been sold at the same rate, which would reflect the market value of their land in that area. The Supreme Court, in Ujjain Villas Pradhikaran v. Tarachand, , has held that notwithstanding the amendment to section 25 of the Act, it would always be open to a party to claim a particular amount and having claimed at that rate, the Court cannot grant compensated higher than the amount claimed by the party. It would be obvious that when a party claims compensation at a particular rate, he assesses the market value of the land at that particular rate and seeks compensation on that basis. Since we have found that the claimants are not the owners of the minerals and the subsoil rights, they are entitled for compensation only in reference to the land.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs Land Acquistion Officer And Anr. ... on 4 April, 2024

Vs. DDA And Ors. (2004) 4 SCC Page 79 dh vksj vkdf"kZr djrs gq, ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd /kkjk 28 o 34 ds izko/kku uksfVfQds'ku ls iwoZ ds dCts ds ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrsA 82- esjs }kjk fo}ku vf/koDrk fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM dh vksj ls izLrqr vkj-,y- tSu okys ekeys dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ Jherh lksgunsoh dh vksj ls vkU/kzizns'k mPp U;k;ky; ds izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar The Revenue Divisional Officer Guntur(Supra) ds ekeys ij Hkh fopkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vius U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa Li"V :i ls fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd uksfVfQds'ku vUrxZr /kkjk 4¼1½ ls iwoZ ;fn dCtk ysuk ik;k tkrk gS rks Hkh /kkjk 28 o 34 ds eqrkfcd C;kt izkIr djus ds Hkwfe/kkjh vf/kdkjh ugha gksaxs vkSj /kkjk 16 o 17 ds rgr fof/klEer dk;Zokgh ds i'pkr dCCtk fy;s tkus ij gh /kkjk 28 o 34 ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSaA ,slh voLFkk esa fo}ku vf/koDrk Jherh lksguckbZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ekuuh; vkU/kz izns'k mPp U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar dk dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus ds vihykFkhZ vf/kdkjh ugha gS vkSj ekuuh; mPPkre U;k;ky; ds rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dk U;kf;d n`"Vkar vkj-,y- tSu okyk ekeyk bl izdj.k esa c[kwch ykxw gksrk gS vkSj vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls dCtk uksfVfQds'ku ls iwoZ fy;s tkus ds ckotwn /kkjk 28 o 34 ds eqrkfcd dksbZ C;kt iSuYVh ds :i esa izkIr djus ds vihykFkhZ lksguckbZ@lksgunsoh vf/kdkjh ugha gSA (Downloaded on 04/04/2024 at 08:39:39 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:14888] (33 of 33) [CMA-1806/2007] 83- fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fook|d la[;k 10 dk fu.kZ; vihykFkhZ Jherh lksguckbZ ds fo:) tks fd;k x;k gS] og fu.kZ; lk{; o fof/k ij vk/kkfjr gksus ls bl fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA 84- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ Jherh lksgunsoh dh vksj ls esjk /;ku ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Ujjain Vikas Pradikaran Vs. Tarachand & Anr. AIR 1996 (SC) Page 2777 dh vksj vkdf"kZr fd;k x;kA ftl U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa dsoy ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 25¼2½ tks fd la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e 68 vkWQ 1984 ls iwoZ dk Fkk] mlds eqrkfcd U;k;ky; }kjk ftruk {kfriwfrZ jkf'k dk Dyse fd;k x;k Fkk] mlls vf/kd dk Dyse ugha fnyk;k tk ldrkA ;g U;kf;d n`"Vkar gLrxr ekeys esa lqlaxr ugha gksus ls bldk dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus dk vihykFkhZ vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 85- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ Jherh lksguckbZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar yhykjke cuke ;qfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k] ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1975 ,l-lh- ist la[;k 2112 ds rF; Hkh gLrxr ekeys ls lqlaxr ugha gksus ls bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar dk Hkh dksbZ ykHk vihykFkhZ Jherh lksgunsoh dh vksj ls izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 86- iwoZ esa fd, x, foospukuqlkj fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk tks fook|d la[;k 1 ls 7 o 10 dk fu.kZ; fd;k x;k] mudh iqf"V vihy ds fu.kZ; esa dh xbZ gS vkSj vihykFkhZ Jherh lksguckbZ o vihykFkhZ fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM dh vksj ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa fook|dksa ds fu.kZ; ds laca/k esa tks vk/kkj vihy esa fy, x,] oks vk/kkj iwoZ esa fd, x, foospu ds vuqlkj Lohdkj ugha fd, x,A ,slh lwjr esa nksuksa vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; o fMØh iqf"V fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 87- fygktk] vihy vihykFkhZ Jherh lksgunsoh S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1806/2007 o vihy vihykFkhZ eS- fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 775/2006 [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Y K Purohit - Full Document

Smt. Sohani Devi vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. ... on 4 April, 2024

Vs. DDA And Ors. (2004) 4 SCC Page 79 dh vksj vkdf"kZr djrs gq, ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd /kkjk 28 o 34 ds izko/kku uksfVfQds'ku ls iwoZ ds dCts ds ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrsA 82- esjs }kjk fo}ku vf/koDrk fganqLrku ftad fyfeVsM dh vksj ls izLrqr vkj-,y- tSu okys ekeys dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ Jherh lksgunsoh dh vksj ls vkU/kzizns'k mPp U;k;ky; ds izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar The Revenue Divisional Officer Guntur(Supra) ds ekeys ij Hkh fopkj fd;k x;k gS vkSj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vius U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa Li"V :i ls fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd uksfVfQds'ku vUrxZr /kkjk 4¼1½ ls iwoZ ;fn dCtk ysuk ik;k tkrk gS rks Hkh /kkjk 28 o 34 ds eqrkfcd C;kt izkIr djus ds Hkwfe/kkjh vf/kdkjh ugha gksaxs vkSj /kkjk 16 o 17 ds rgr fof/klEer dk;Zokgh ds i'pkr dCCtk fy;s tkus ij gh /kkjk 28 o 34 ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSaA ,slh voLFkk esa fo}ku vf/koDrk Jherh lksguckbZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ekuuh; vkU/kz izns'k mPp U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar dk dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus ds vihykFkhZ vf/kdkjh ugha gS vkSj ekuuh; mPPkre U;k;ky; ds rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dk U;kf;d n`"Vkar vkj-,y- tSu okyk ekeyk bl izdj.k esa c[kwch ykxw gksrk gS vkSj vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls dCtk uksfVfQds'ku ls iwoZ fy;s tkus ds ckotwn /kkjk 28 o 34 ds eqrkfcd dksbZ C;kt iSuYVh ds :i esa izkIr djus ds vihykFkhZ lksguckbZ@lksgunsoh vf/kdkjh ugha gSA (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 08:32:09 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:14888] (33 of 33) [CMA-1806/2007] 83- fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fook|d la[;k 10 dk fu.kZ; vihykFkhZ Jherh lksguckbZ ds fo:) tks fd;k x;k gS] og fu.kZ; lk{; o fof/k ij vk/kkfjr gksus ls bl fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA 84- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ Jherh lksgunsoh dh vksj ls esjk /;ku ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Ujjain Vikas Pradikaran Vs. Tarachand & Anr. AIR 1996 (SC) Page 2777 dh vksj vkdf"kZr fd;k x;kA ftl U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa dsoy ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 25¼2½ tks fd la'kks/ku vf/kfu;e 68 vkWQ 1984 ls iwoZ dk Fkk] mlds eqrkfcd U;k;ky; }kjk ftruk {kfriwfrZ jkf'k dk Dyse fd;k x;k Fkk] mlls vf/kd dk Dyse ugha fnyk;k tk ldrkA ;g U;kf;d n`"Vkar gLrxr ekeys esa lqlaxr ugha gksus ls bldk dksbZ ykHk izkIr djus dk vihykFkhZ vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 85- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ Jherh lksguckbZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar yhykjke cuke ;qfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k] ,-vkbZ-vkj- 1975 ,l-lh- ist la[;k 2112 ds rF; Hkh gLrxr ekeys ls lqlaxr ugha gksus ls bl U;kf;d n`"Vkar dk Hkh dksbZ ykHk vihykFkhZ Jherh lksgunsoh dh vksj ls izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 86- iwoZ esa fd, x, foospukuqlkj fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk tks fook|d la[;k 1 ls 7 o 10 dk fu.kZ; fd;k x;k] mudh iqf"V vihy ds fu.kZ; esa dh xbZ gS vkSj vihykFkhZ Jherh lksguckbZ o vihykFkhZ fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM dh vksj ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa fook|dksa ds fu.kZ; ds laca/k esa tks vk/kkj vihy esa fy, x,] oks vk/kkj iwoZ esa fd, x, foospu ds vuqlkj Lohdkj ugha fd, x,A ,slh lwjr esa nksuksa vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; o fMØh iqf"V fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 87- fygktk] vihy vihykFkhZ Jherh lksgunsoh S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1806/2007 o vihy vihykFkhZ eS- fgUnqLrku ftad fyfeVsM S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 775/2006 [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Y K Purohit - Full Document
1   2 3 Next