Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.43 seconds)Section 31 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 11 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Special Deputy Collector, Land ... vs N. Sangaiah And Others on 18 November, 2000
19. This decision of learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench in appeal. The Division Bench in its decision in Sangaiah's case (supra) followed Ajit Singh's case to which a reference has already been made in earlier part of this judgment.
Bhag Singh & Ors vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh, Through ... on 14 August, 1985
24. It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh v. Union Terriotry of Chandigarh, , wherein it was held that a person who is deprived compulsorily of his property by the State under the provisions of the Act is entitled to receive fair amount of compensation. The State should not take up a technical plea and defeat the legitimate and just claim. P.N. Bhagawati, CJ., speaking for the Bench observed thus:
Union Of India vs Hansoli Devi & Ors on 12 September, 2002
26. The intention of the Legislature to pay fair and reasonable compensation to all interested persons on the basis of the true market value of the land is very much evident when amendment was made to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act by Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984 by inserting Section 28-A of the Act making a provision for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court passed in respect of similar land covered by the same notification. The scope and object in incorporating Section 28-A is to remove inequality in payment of compensation for the same or similar acquisition of land arising on account of poor people not being able to take advantage of the right of reference to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Section 28-A nowhere restricts the right of the interested person to seek for re-determination of the amount of compensation and does not debar even those who had even received the amount of compensation without protest. Any person interested aggrieved by the award can make an application to the Collector for re-determination of the amount of compensation provided that application is filed within the period of limitation from the date of the award of the Court made under the provisions of the Act. Section 28-A of the Act enables the Court to grant compensation in excess of the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector on the basis of the award of the Court passed in respect of similar lands covered by the same notification subject to the condition that the land is covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and application is filed within three months from the date of award. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Hansoli Devi, , held that even those persons who received the compensation without protest and who had filed application for reference under Section 18 can also seek reference for re-determination of the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act. It was held:
Ajit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 September, 1999
In a situation where an interested person within the period of limitation seeks reference for determination of compensation and the law nowhere lays down in clear and explicit terms the time, the method and manner of lodging protest, there is no reason that why to such a case the ratio laid down in Ajit Singh's case will not be applicable. The Supreme Court held that the very fact of seeking reference by the person interested within the limitation would imply lodging of protest and an inference that the amount offered by the Collector on behalf of the State has been received subject to his right to have the correct amount of compensation determined by a Civil Court, in accordance with law. After all what the Civil Court will do, when a reference is made? It will have to determine the amount which is payable under the provisions of the Act with reference to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, namely, the true market value of the land as on the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.