Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) By Lrs vs State Of Gujarat on 13 April, 2005
However, we are not oblivious of the fact that this Court had observed in VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR v. STATE OF GUJARAT (2005) 4 SCC 789):
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.69 seconds)Atma Singh (Died) Through Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 7 December, 2007
44. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Singh v. State of Haryana,(2008) 2 SCC 568, by placing reliance on some of the earlier Judgments regarding deduction in the case of smaller extent when compared to the larger extent acquired, explained the legal position thus:-
Kasturi & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 12 November, 2002
29. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally one-third deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. (See Kasturi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 354}, Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. {(2003) 10 SCC 525}, V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R.Officer {(2003) 12 SCC 642} , H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi {(2004(2) SCC 184} and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and anr. {(2004) 10 SCC 745}"
Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-L.A.O vs Shaik Azam Sahem Etc.Etc on 13 January, 2009
41. The Honourable Supreme Court in REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER cum- L.A.O. v. SHAIK AZAM SAHEB ETC.[2009(1)SCALE 545] cited supra indicated the extent of deduction taking into consideration the nature of land acquisition and the land involved in the subject matter of sale deed relied on for computing the market rate and deducted one third towards development cost and observed thus:-
A.S.Krishna And Co. Pvt. Ltd vs Land Acquisition Officer(Deputy ... on 19 November, 1991
In P.S.Krishna and Co. Pvt.Ltd., v. The Land Acquisition Officer, (Deputy Collector) Hyderabad (1991(2) SCALE 1186) this Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the High Court which had given a deduction of 20% towards development charges.
M/S. Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons And Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 26 July, 1995
In Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat (1995(5) SCC 422) and Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu {(2003) 12 SCC 334} = {(2003) 10 SCALE 307] it has been noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes deduction by way of development charges is permissible.
The Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs Nookala Rajamallu And Ors. on 21 November, 2003
In Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat (1995(5) SCC 422) and Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu {(2003) 12 SCC 334} = {(2003) 10 SCALE 307] it has been noticed that where lands are acquired for specific purposes deduction by way of development charges is permissible.
Tejumal Bhojwani And Ors vs State Of U.P on 26 August, 2003
29. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally one-third deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. (See Kasturi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 354}, Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. {(2003) 10 SCC 525}, V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R.Officer {(2003) 12 SCC 642} , H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi {(2004(2) SCC 184} and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and anr. {(2004) 10 SCC 745}"
Kiran Tandon vs Allahabad Development Authority & Anr on 23 March, 2004
29. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that normally one-third deduction of further amount of compensation has been directed in some cases. (See Kasturi v. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 354}, Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. {(2003) 10 SCC 525}, V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R.Officer {(2003) 12 SCC 642} , H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi {(2004(2) SCC 184} and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority and anr. {(2004) 10 SCC 745}"
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 21 July, 1988
"11.In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer it was held as follows :