Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.33 seconds)
Shanti Devi Etc. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 18 February, 1999 cites

Shanti Devi And Ors. vs General Manager, Haryana Roadways, ... on 15 March, 1971

"No occasion arose to take judicial notice of the inflation and high rise of prices. It must be borne in mind that from the date of award, interest becomes due to the claimant land owner, for thenceforth the land ceases to be his and while so the question of price rise does not arise when he is compensated for the deprival by payment of interest. That apart we have our strongest reservations to the rule evolved by the High Court in Maya Devi's case as also in Inder Singh's case afore-quoted. The Amendment Act of 1984 is explicit in terms. The limited retrospectively provided in the amending provisions do not permit adoption of 12% increase in price in each and every acquisition. If it was so intended the legislature would have expressly provided so. We would decry that rule and express our disapproval for its universal application or for all acquisition." From the above detailed discussion three exhibits produced and proved by the claimants which are comparable instances are Ex. PX, Ex.PA and Ex.P.18. These instances are not only comparable in terms of location, and potentiality but are also relevant in relation to proximity of time of acquisition of land."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 74 - Full Document

Bhagawathulla Samanna And Ors vs Special Tahsildar And Land Acquisition ... on 18 September, 1991

In the case of Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, 1992(1) Recent Revenue Reports 256 relied upon by learned counsel for the claimants, the observations of the Court were that where complete development has taken place, the land is located on the National Highway and the land was to be valued only as building site, applying the principle of cut would not be called for. The other judgments of this court state that where the area acquired was part of the Municipal developed area, it may not be appropriate to apply the principle of cut.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 108 - M F Beevi - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Balbir Singh & Anr on 5 May, 1998

"I have already dealt in great detail the reasons as to why the land in question cannot be termed as a developed area for applying the principle of cut. It also needs to be noticed that the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, has not given any specific finding in the entire judgment that the area in question is a developed area as commonly accepted.. Haphazard development would be of some consequence, but could no way be equated to a fully developed area. The purpose for which the land is acquired, the relevant records declaring the entire land as agricultural land and the fact that the sale deeds relate to comparatively small pieces of land would fully justify the application of the element of cut to the afore-said amount. It has been held above that 20 per cent cut on uniform basis would be a fair determination of the market value "of the land in question."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 74 - S V Manohar - Full Document

The State Of Bihar vs Madheshwar Prasad on 8 August, 1996

This was reiterated in State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad, (1996)6 S.C.C. 197. Acceptance of certified copy of the sale deed under Section 51-A relates only to the production of the original sale deeds but it does not dispense with proof of the contents of the documents, relative features vis-a-vis, the land under acquisition. All is needed to be proved by examining the persons connected with the same and parties to the document. Following the above ratio, we hold that the view taken by the High Court and that of the reference Court is entirely illegal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 15 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Tek Chand (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 31 August, 1990

19. Rajesh Kumar, PW10 claimed that he had about 1560 eucalyptus trees and a kotha and 20 kikar trees. He spent Rs. 25,000/- over construction of kotha. There is no rebuttal to this evidence. It is already held in the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely, Tek Chand v. Union of India (supra) that the amount have to be tentatively awarded and hence I award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for construction of Kotha and in all Rs. 5,000/- for trees. The ambient already paid in this behalf shall be deducted from this amount, if any.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 34 - M H Kania - Full Document
1   2 Next