Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
H.P. Housing Board vs Bharat S. Negi And Ors. on 27 January, 2004
30. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel referred to the decision in
H.P. Housing Board Vs. Bharat S. Negi and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 184 to
argue that when large area of land is acquired there must be a minimum
deduction of 33 1/3 % towards development cost. In the present cases the sale
deeds of agricultural land produced by the claimant was of the year 1984-88
while acquisition took place in June 1989 and as such the lands so sold would
acquire more value at the time when tea garden lands were acquired and
considered from that standpoint, deduction of 33 1/3 % would be unwarranted.
Moreover, the value of the tea garden land is obviously higher than the
12
agricultural land and tea garden land has more productivity then the value of the
agricultural land and in such circumstances when valuation of the tea garden
land is made in comparison with the valuation of the nearby agricultural land
deduction of 33 1/3% would definitely defeat the ends of justice.
The Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd vs The Collector Of Hailakandi on 13 December, 1996
22. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Apex
Court in Manipur Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Hailakandi, reported in 1997 (9)
SSC 673 to contend that the burden is on the claimants to prove, by adducing
cogent, reliable and acceptable evidence, the market value under section 23 (1)
of the Land Acquisition Act.
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 4 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs P. Veerabhadarappa Etc. Etc on 9 January, 1984
Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer,
10
Davangere Vs. P. Veerabhadarappa and Ors., (1984) 2 SCC 120 appellant
argued that when there is no evidence for computation of market value then the
net return of the District Agricultural Officer in respect of "cha bhagicha" should
be accepted. But in the referred decision it has clearly been held that normally
the method of valuation by capitalization should not be resorted to where other
methods are available.
Numaligarh Refinery Ltd vs Green View Tea & Industries & Anr on 15 March, 2007
In Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court
approved valuation of tea bushes separately.
1