Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.69 seconds)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."
Savitri Devi vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 12 February, 1996
While award in the case of Shanti Devi was pronounced on 14th October, 1993, the judgment in the case of Shanti Devi was followed in the case of Savitri Devi v. State of Haryana as exhibit P.9 and was again followed in the case of Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana, exhibit P.13.
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.
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."
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Anr. vs Jagir Kaur And Ors. on 24 December, 1998
In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of the State of Haryana and another v. Jagir Kaur and Ors., (1999-2)122 P.L.R. 259.
K.S. Shivadevamma And Ors. Etc vs Assistant Commissioner And Land ... on 8 December, 1995
23. The learned counsel for the State, while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Shivadevama and Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., 1996(2) Supreme Court Cases 62, prayed that a cut of 53% should be applied.
Raghbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 13 September, 1984
While award in the case of Shanti Devi was pronounced on 14th October, 1993, the judgment in the case of Shanti Devi was followed in the case of Savitri Devi v. State of Haryana as exhibit P.9 and was again followed in the case of Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana, exhibit P.13.
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.