Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.52 seconds)
Between vs And on 11 May, 2026 cites

A.P.Industrial Infrastructure ... vs Ramesh Singh &Amp Ors. on 4 August, 2014

111. We are however of the view that (writ petitioners) the respondents in the writ appeals may be entitled for grant of compensation on resumption of the land. May be in view of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Mekala Pandu (supra), though in the case of Yadaiah (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that if the resumption is valid, the assignees would not be entitled to any compensation and also not the status of the claimants/assignees as constitutional claimants in view of Ramesh Singh (supra).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Mary Pushpam vs Telvi Curusumary And Ors. on 9 September, 2014

47. Learned counsel for the appellant - APIIC in Writ Appeal No.259 of 2014 submitted that based on the orders passed in W.P.Nos.561 of 2007 and W.P.No.18226 of 2007 the compensation were determined as per the rate fixed in G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 and further determination was made as per the LA Act, 1894 granting an amount towards 30% of Solatium, Additional Market value @ 12% per annum and the enhancement agreed by negotiation committee @ 47.5%, pursuant to the directions in W.P.No.26439 of 2008. Consequently, therebeing resumption of land which was assigned to the writ petitioners and which resumption is valid and the compensation also having been determined and paid to the writ petitioners/deposited with the authorities, in terms of the orders passed in the previous writ petitions the direction issued in the impugned judgment to initiate the proceedings for acquisition under the LA Act and as per the direction issued, are illegal. There is no need nor a legal requirement to issue acquisition notification. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary {(2024) 3 SCC 224}.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - U U Lalit - Full Document
1