Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 March, 2009
of urban agricultural land was that it was not a compulsory
acquisition, but only executed through a negotiated sale deed.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union
of India & Others (supra) had categorically held merely
because the sale price is fixed through a negotiated
settlement will not take away the proceedings from the Land
Acquisition Act when the relevant provision of the Act are
invoked. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads
as follows:-
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Union Of India vs M/S.Infopark Kerala on 5 April, 2017
In this context, the learned AR
submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the
assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India (supra) and Union of
India v. Infopark Kerala [81 Taxmann.com 51 (SC)]. It was
contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in above cases had
clearly held that since the entire procedure fixed under Land
Acquisition Act was followed, the character of acquisition from
that of compulsory acquisition to voluntary sale would not
change though the price was fixed on negotiated settlement.
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
1