Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Sri. G.P. Venkatappa Reddy S/O Papaiah vs ) The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer on 18 March, 2017
cites
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Balwan Singh And Ors. vs Land Acquisition Collector And Ors. on 8 August, 2007
.24. A perusal of the statement showing particulars of
acquisition of land pertaining to khata No.247/1 submitted by
the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reveals that date of taking
possession of the land is on 24.11.1996. But Ex.P-3 issued by
the Respondents u/s.12(2) of L.A. Act reveals that they have
24 L.A.C. No.238/2002
collected additional market value from 22.09.1992 to
22.12.1994. In the evidence of PW.1 he has clearly stated that
before preliminary notification, the Respondents have acquired
the possession of the land on 22.09.1992. The evidence of PW.1
is remained unchallenged. The Respondents have not placed any
materials to show that date of taking possession of the land is on
24.11.1996. The Respondents have not explained anything on
what basis they have mentioned the date of taking possession as
24.11.1996 in the statement of particulars furnished by the
Respondents. Therefore, considering the evidence placed by the
Claimant, I am of the opinion that the Claimant has proved that
the Respondents have taken possession of the property in
question on 22.09.1992. Therefore, in view of a decision reported
in 2016 SAR (Civil) 632 (Balwan Singh and others Vs. Land
Acquisition Collector and another) and also a decision
reported in (2014)13 SCC 613 (Tahera Khatoon and others
Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer and
others). The Claimant is entitled for interest from the date of
taking possession of the property i.e., from 22.09.1992 u/s.28 of
25 L.A.C. No.238/2002
L.A. Act 1894. Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled for statutory
benefits. Hence, I answer point No.1 partly in the Affirmative.
K D Sundar Raj vs The Union Of India on 27 March, 2008
The Claimant is entitled for interest
U/s.28 of L.A. Act 1894. It is made it
clear that the claimant is entitled for
statutory benefits as per the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court Sundar Vs Union of
India reported in (2001)7 SCC page 211.
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 21 July, 1988
.6. Before framing as to the points for consideration it is
necessary to mention here as to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex court which is reported in AIR 1988 Supreme
court 1652 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Poona and another). Wherein their
Lordship have held that:
Section 28 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Agricultural Produce Market ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Cum-Land ... on 24 June, 2004
In Ex.P-5 the then Presiding Officer has relied upon a
decision reported in ILR 2004 Karnataka page 4240 (The
Agricultural Produce Market Committee, by its Secretary &
Another Vs. the Assistant Commissioner cum Land
Acquisition Officer, Chikkodi and others) and fixed the market
value of the property at Rs.200/- per sq. feet. The Respondents
17 L.A.C. No.238/2002
have not placed any materials as to the appeal preferred by them
against the Judgment and award passed by this court in L.A.C.
No.233/2002. But the counsel for the Claimant has stated that
the Respondents have not preferred any appeal against judgment
and award passed by this court on 30.01.2010 in L.A.C.
No.233/2002. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged.
The Respondents have not cross-examined the PWs.1 and 2.
Therefore, considering the evidence of PW.1 and also the
judgment and award passed by this court in L.A.C.
No.233/2002, it is just and proper to determine the actual
market value @ Rs.200/- per sq. feet. Accordingly, the Claimant
is entitled for compensation @ Rs.200/- per sq. feet against
Rs.45/- to the extent of 2232 sq. feet bearing khata No.247/1
situated at Bommanahalli village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk.
1