Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Hazura Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 25 February, 2004

Harpartap Rai Puri &Ors; vs State Of Punjab on 8 January, 2019

have been resorted to adequate compensation for cost of construction of shops. Reliance was wrongly placed on the State witness solely who inspected the premises much after the possession had been taken but his statement is not liable to be accepted as Gospel truth. Reliance can be placed on the average of two valuation reports of `1,63,480/- and `5,57,003/- to work out the market value of the cost of construction on the basis of judgment of Union of India vs. Pal Singh & Anr. 1994 (3) PLR 569 which was followed in Hazura Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India 2004(2) PLR 642. If the said principle is followed the average total amount of the two would work out to `3,60,241/- and the appellants would be entitled to the balance of `1,96,761 which would be due to them.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document

Prithipal Singh vs Ut Chandigarh on 11 May, 2009

In the aforesaid case, the appellant had relied upon various decisions of this Court in RFA No.894 of 1976 titled as Hans Raj and others Vs. Chandigarh Administration decided on 8.4.1980; RFA No.2608 of 1980 titled as Dharam Vir and others Vs. Union of India decided on 18.8.1981; RFA No.2560 of 1987 titled as Hazura Singh Vs. Union of India decided on 25.2.2004; RFA No.2340 of 1998 titled as Suraj Bhan and others Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh decided on 24.9.2008; Jai Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another, 1992 LACC 501 and Union of India Vs. Pal Singh and another (1994-3) PLR 569.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - R K Jain - Full Document

Ravinder Singh vs Union Territory Chandigarh on 7 January, 2010

As far as compensation on account of valuation of superstructure standing on the land is concerned, considering the principle, which is being consistently followed by this court in similar cases i.e. RFA No. 894 of 1976 Hans Raj and others vs Chandigarh Administration, decided on 8.4.1980; RFA No. 2608 of 1980 Dharam Vir and others vs Union of India decided on 18.8.1981; RFA No. 2560 of 1987 Hazura Singh vs Union of India decided on 25.2.2004; RFA No. 2340 of 1998 Suraj Bhan and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh decided on 24.9.2008; Jai Kaur vs State of Punjab and another 1992 LACC 501 and Union of India vs Pal Singh and another (1994-3) PLR 569, it is directed that the landowners shall be entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of superstructure standing on the acquired land by granting them increase @ 25% on the value as assessed at PWD rates. The landowners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits thereon.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - R Bindal - Full Document

Yadvinder Singh vs Union Territory on 18 November, 2010

As far as compensation on account of valuation of superstructure standing on the land is concerned, considering the principle, which is being consistently followed by this court in similar cases i.e. RFA No. 894 of 1976 Hans Raj and others vs Chandigarh Administration, decided on 8.4.1980; RFA No. 2608 of 1980 Dharam Vir and others vs Union of India decided on 18.8.1981; RFA No. 2560 of 1987 Hazura Singh vs Union of India decided on 25.2.2004; RFA No. 2340 of 1998 Suraj Bhan and others vs Union Territory, Chandigarh decided on 24.9.2008; Jai Kaur vs State of Punjab and another 1992 LACC 501 and Union of India vs Pal Singh and another (1994-3) PLR 569, it is directed that the landowners shall be entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of superstructure standing on the acquired land by granting them increase @ 25% on the value as assessed at PWD rates plus statutory benefits.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R Bindal - Full Document
1