Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 77 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Raj Bala vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 July, 2003

( Through Ld. Counsel Sh. D. K. Tyagi ) vs Union Of India on 23 July, 2008

24 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner herein has relied upon the same arguments which were addressed by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI on the aspect if this reference court does not consider the sale deeds proved by the petitioner in his evidence, however not admitted by the counsel for the petitioner, for fixing the market value of the acquired land and the reference court agrees with the rate fixed by the LAC as per the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi then the petitioner is entitled to increase @ 11.5% per annum on the compensation amount assessed by the LAC from 09.08.2001 i.e. the date of indicative price fixed by the Govt. for agricultural land to 18.07.2003 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. In this context, the counsel for petitioner has relied upon the aforesaid judgment dt. 11.05.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005 along with other LA Appl nos.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Lakhmi Chand vs Union Of India on 24 July, 2008

25 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners herein has relied upon the same arguments which were addressed by the counsel for the petitioners in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI on the aspect if this reference court does not consider the sale deeds proved by the petitioners in their evidence, however not admitted by the counsel for the petitioners, for fixing the market value of the acquired land and the reference court agrees with the rate fixed by the LAC as per the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi then the petitioners are entitled to increase @ 11.5% per 33 annum on the compensation amount assessed by the LAC from 09.08.2001 i.e. the date of indicative price fixed by the Govt. for agricultural land to 18.07.2003 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. In this context, the counsel for petitioners have relied upon the aforesaid judgment dt. 11.05.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005 along with other LA Appl nos.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

( Through Ld. Counsel Sh. Inder Singh ) vs Union Of India on 15 July, 2008

26 Since, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid cases i.e. Mahender Singh & Gajraj Singh (Supra) has given compounded increase @ 11.5% annually on the compensation awarded, therefore, my decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also the award/ judgment dt. 14.07.2008 passed by this reference in LAC No.226/1/07 entitled Raj Bal Vs UOI & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Braham Singh vs Union Of India on 22 July, 2008

Page numbers 25 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners herein have relied upon the same arguments which were addressed by the counsel for the petitioners in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI on the aspect if this reference court does not consider the sale deeds proved by the petitioners in their evidence, however not admitted by the counsel for the petitioners, for fixing the market value of the acquired land and the reference court agrees with the rate fixed by the LAC as per the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi then the petitioners are entitled to increase @ 11.5% per annum on the compensation amount assessed by the LAC from 09.08.2001 i.e. the date of indicative price fixed by the Govt. for agricultural land to 18.07.2003 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. In this context, the counsel for petitioners have relied upon the aforesaid judgment dt. 11.05.2006 passed by the Hon' ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005 along with other LA Appl nos.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Raj Kumari W/O Sh. Kalyan Singh vs Union Of India on 28 July, 2008

Since the aforesaid sale deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/5 pertains to the years 2006 & 2007 respectively which have been executed after the land in question acquired on 18.07.2003, 31 therefore, the aforesaid sale deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/5 which are of subsequent years have not been considered for fixing the fair market value as on 18.07.2003 in Raj Bal case, therefore, the same are also not applicable to the land in question which is similarly situated in the present reference.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Krishan Kumar vs Union Of India on 28 July, 2008

27 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner herein has relied upon the same arguments which were addressed by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI on the aspect if this reference court does not consider the sale deeds proved by the petitioner in their evidence, however not admitted by the counsel for the petitioner, for fixing the market value of the acquired land and the reference court agrees with the rate fixed by the LAC as per the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi then the petitioner is entitled to increase @ 11.5% per annum on the compensation amount assessed by the LAC from 09.08.2001 i.e. the date of indicative price fixed by the Govt. for agricultural land to 18.07.2003 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. In this context, the counsel for petitioner has relied upon the aforesaid judgment dt. 11.05.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005 along with other LA Appl nos.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Radhey Shayam vs Union Of India on 23 July, 2008

28 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners herein has relied upon the same arguments which were addressed by the counsel for the petitioners in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI on the aspect if this reference court does not consider the sale deeds proved by the petitioners in their evidence, however not admitted by the counsel for the petitioners, for fixing the market value of the acquired land and the reference court agrees with the rate fixed by the LAC as per the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi then the petitioners are entitled to increase @ 11.5% per annum on the compensation amount assessed by the LAC from 09.08.2001 i.e. the date of indicative price fixed by the Govt. for agricultural land to 18.07.2003 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. In this context, the counsel for petitioners has relied upon the aforesaid judgment dt. 11.05.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005 along with other LA Appl nos.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Kalyan Singh S/O Sh. Shiv Charan vs Union Of India on 7 August, 2008

28 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner herein has relied upon the same arguments which were addressed by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI on the aspect if this reference court does not consider the sale deeds proved by the petitioner in their evidence, however not admitted by the counsel for the petitioner, for fixing the market value of the acquired land and the reference court agrees with the rate fixed by the LAC as per the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi then the petitioner is entitled to increase @ 11.5% per annum on the compensation amount assessed by the LAC from 09.08.2001 i.e. the date of indicative price fixed by the Govt. for agricultural land to 18.07.2003 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. In this context, the counsel for petitioner has relied upon the aforesaid judgment dt. 11.05.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005 along with other LA Appl nos.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Chajju vs Union Of India on 21 July, 2008

27 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners herein has relied upon the same arguments which were addressed by him in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI on the aspect if this reference court does not consider the sale deeds proved by the petitioners in their evidence, however not admitted by the counsel for the petitioners, for fixing the market value of the acquired land and the reference court agrees with the rate fixed by the LAC as per the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi then the petitioners are entitled to increase @ 11.5% per annum on the compensation amount assessed by the LAC from 09.08.2001 i.e. the date of indicative price fixed by the Govt. for agricultural land to 18.07.2003 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. In this context, the counsel for petitioners has relied upon the aforesaid judgment dt. 11.05.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005 along with other LA Appl nos.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Dharam Singh vs Union Of India on 22 July, 2008

26 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners herein has relied upon the same arguments which were addressed by him in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI on the aspect if this reference court does not consider the sale deeds proved by the petitioners in their evidence, however not admitted by the counsel for the petitioners, for fixing the market value of the acquired land and the reference court agrees with the rate fixed by the LAC as per the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi then the petitioners are entitled to increase @ 11.5% per annum on the compensation amount assessed by the LAC from 09.08.2001 i.e. the date of indicative price fixed by the Govt. for agricultural land to 18.07.2003 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. In this context, the counsel for petitioners has relied upon the aforesaid judgment dt. 11.05.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005 along with other LA Appl nos.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next