Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Sunitha K.E vs State Of Kerala on 11 February, 2010 cites

Shaji Kuriakose And Anr vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors on 14 August, 2001

3. It is to be noted that the first respondent, the acquisition L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 6 authority, filed Cross Objection No.78/2013 in this appeal. It is contended therein that the Reference Court, as per the impugned judgment, granted exorbitant and unreasonable enhancement of land value. It is the further contention that Ext.R4 is the very document under which the claimant-appellant purchased the property in question and going by the same, the centage value is only `10,000/-. In such circumstances, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the appellant could not be heard to contend that the property was actually under-valued in Ext.R4 as a ground to substantiate her claim for enhanced compensation. It is also contended that in the light of section 92 of the Evidence Act, it is impermissible to adduce evidence to contradict the recitals in one's own documents. In such circumstances, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that the land value of the property is much more than `10,000/- could not be sustained. The learned counsel for the L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 7 appellant, on the other hand, contended that for the purpose of considering the question of enhancement, the relevant documents which are to be looked into in the light of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is the document pertaining to the period of section 4 (1) notification. The learned counsel also contended that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corporation [AIR 2001 SC 3341, certain other factors also have to be taken into account for fixing the land value on the basis of the comparable sales method of evaluation of land. Thus, it is obvious from the rival contentions that while the appellant-claimant contends that the Reference Court erred in effecting deduction of 50% from the land value shown in Ext.A2, respondents 1 and 2 contend that the Reference Court had virtually erred in relying on Ext.A2 and to grant enhancement over and above the land value awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is contended by respondents 1 and 2 that a perusal of the document by which the appellant purchased the L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 8 property and the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer would reveal that almost 100% enhancement was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer and in such circumstances, there is absolutely no justification for seeking further enhancement relying on Ext.A2 or based on the judgment in LAR No.131/2008.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 438 - V N Khare - Full Document

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan ... vs Bipin Kumar & Anr on 7 January, 2004

Therefore, even while following the dictum in Bipin Kumar's case (supra) that parties who have undervalued their documents for payment of stamp duty are precluded from claiming that their own documents do not reflect the correct market value the other evidence, if any, adduced would establish high potentiality of the land concerned, could be considered. Hence, based on the said decision itself, the question whether Exts.A1 to A4 or any other document now, produced at the appellate stage could be looked into and relied on as evidence of high potentiality for the purpose of considering the claim for enhancement of compensation, has to be considered. Though the appellant cannot therefore, be permitted to take advantage of her own wrong in under valuing the property purchased by her under Ext.R4 and also to allege things contrary to Ext.A2 they cannot be reasons for rejecting the claim of the appellant based on other evidence, if any, for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the land acquired was having high potentiality. The L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 15 discussion as above would reveal absence of merits in the contentions of the cross-objector viz., the first respondent in the appeal. In other words, the contention in the cross-objection to the effect that having purchased the property in question under Ext.R4, the appellant- claimant is not entitled to seek for enhanced compensation especially when 100% enhancement with reference to the value in Ext.R4 was given by the Land Acquisition Officer, cannot be a reason for us to hold the appeal as completely meritless.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 189 - S N Variava - Full Document

Baldev Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab Through Collector on 7 August, 1996

L.A.A.1012/2010 & Cross Objection 78/2013 16 The appellant seeks to produce true copy of the Document No.4178 of 2006 dated 11.12.2006 of S.R.O., Thrikkakara (Annexure-1), True copy of Document No.3309/2007 dated 18.7.2007 of S.R.O, Thrikkakara (Annexure-2), True copy of Document No.4989/2007 dated 12.12.2007 (Annexure-3), True copy of Document No.3089/2008 dated 21.11.2008 of S.R.O, Thrikkakara (Annexure-4) and True copy of list of sale deed documents (Annexure-5). Evidently,Annexures-1 to 4 are sale deeds subsequent to the section 4 (1) notification dated 16.1.2006. Annexure-5 is only a copy of list of sale deed documents. While considering the question whether they could be received as additional evidence in this appeal, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baldev Singh and others v. State of Punjab reported in (1996) 10 SCC 37 assumes relevance. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 66 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1