Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)Jaw Ajee Nagnatham vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 January, 1994
16. On behalf of respondents, two objections were raised before the Court against the award of compensation by the S.L.A.O. The first objection was that the compensation could not be awarded on the basis of the circle rate and the second objection was that the sale
deed was more than a year old and could not provide a safe guide. The Court below has accepted the Increase of 10% per year against which no criticism has been made by learned counsel for the parties. If this 10% increase is added to the rate at "which the land was sold under sale deed dated 2.6.1983, the net rate shall be Rs. 63.92 per sq. yard, i.e., Rs. 64 per sq. yard (in round figure). The Court below has also dealt with the question of categorisation of the land for awarding compensation. Learned Court below after discussing the material on record and the legal position recorded finding that there Is no evidence adduced by the State or the Corporation that some land could be used as commercial complex and belting system should have been adopted' for awarding compensation. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jawaji Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595, disapproved the use of basic value register to determine the market value of the land.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958
Relying on the judgment in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. A. Narayan Shetty, AIR 1959 SC 429, their Lordships held that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land and at the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. After referring other judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on this point, their Lordships held that it is settled law that in determining the market value, the Court has to take Into account either one or the other of the three methods to determine market value of the lands appropriate on the facts of a given case to determine the market value.
Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993
18. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that when compensation is determined on the basis of the comparable sales, the potentiality of the land for or likelihood of its being used for building purposes in future, cannot be taken into account and it loses significance. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Rao Narain Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1557, held that where the method of valuation to be resorted to by a Court for determining on the basis of the comparable sales. the building potentiality of the land at the time of acquisition has no significance. Para 8 of the judgment is being quoted below :
Kamal Kanti Dutta And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 April, 1980
3. Land owners felt dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. Consequently. 49 references were made under Section 18 of the Act. These References were heard by Shri H. L. Kureel, learned IInd Additional District Judge. Ghaziabad, in two bunches. The first bunch consisted of 26 cases, the leading case of which was Kanti and others v. State and others. Land Acquisition Reference No. 271 of 1987.
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
1