Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Balbir Singh Thr Legal Representative ... vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 19 April, 2018

State Of Haryana Through The ... vs Karim Ahmed & Ors on 3 November, 2021

9. In these two batches of appeals, the crucial date for the assessment of the market value of the land regarding the first acquisition is 06.02.2008, whereas with respect to the second acquisition, the crucial date is 19.11.2008. Therefore, the reference court has erred in relying upon the exemplar sale deed (Ex.P1), dated 07.06.2011. It is well settled that the exemplar sale deed which is after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should not be ordinarily relied upon. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representative and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (2018) 2 SCC 474. The relevant discussion is in para 5, which is extracted as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Kshetarpal - Full Document

Balwan And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 February, 2024

In the considered view of this Court, this is not the manner in which the market value of the acquired land is to be assessed particularly when sale exemplars of the contemporaneous period have been produced. Similarly, the learned counsel has erred in relying upon the sale of the land measuring 699.53 acres by the Corporation to M/s Maruti Suzuki Limited @ ₹75,00,000/- per acre. As per Section 23 and 24 of the 1894 Act, the sale deed post the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act cannot be taken into consideration. The reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maya Devi (Dead) through Legal Representative and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (2018) 2 SCC 474. The relevant discussion is in para 5, which is extracted as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A Kshetarpal - Full Document

Ct. 8 vs Indrajit Ghosh & Ors on 9 June, 2022

The learned Counsel for the KMDA also supports the submission of the appellant by relying upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely, (i) Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority vs. Gobinda Chandra Makal & Anr. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 207 and (ii) Maya Devi (Dead) through 3 Legal Representative and Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 474. It is submitted that both the aforesaid decisions have clearly spelt out that in determining the market value under Section 23(1) of the Act, the rise in the market value after the publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act should not be taken into account for the purpose of determining the market value. It is the date of the publication of the Notification under Section 4 which would be relevant for the purpose of determining the compensation. The learned Counsel for the claimant, however, submits that since the KMDA had taken wrongful possession of the land earlier and thereafter on 4 th April, 2003 for the purpose of determination of the compensation, the relevant date would be 4th April, 2003. It is submitted that the learned Judge did not fully accept the valuation report submitted on behalf of the claimant and had modified a compensation amount to Rs.1,20,000/- per decimals and on that basis the compensation amount was revised.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1