Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)
The Executive Engineer vs Thippeswamy on 13 August, 2014 cites

State Of Haryana vs Gurcharan Singh & Anr. Etc on 18 January, 1995

21. One thing is certain that the multiplier to be adopted cannot be commensurate with the economic lifespan of the tree as has been done by the learned District Judge. He has used multiplier of 35 and has capitalized the net income to arrive at the amount of compensation payable. This approach is impermissible. In land acquisition cases, the value of the acquired land wherein fruit bearing trees are grown has been determined normally by applying 10 multiplier. The Apex Court in the matter of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 161 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

The Kerala State Electricity Board vs Livisha Etc. Etc on 18 May, 2007

In KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792, the Apex Court while considering the determination of compensation made based on the Judgment of Five Judges Bench of Kerala High Court in the matter of KOMATH KUMBA AMMA & OTHERS Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - 2000(1) KLT 542 (FB) wherein it was held that the annuity thereof shall be calculated on the basis of 5% return and fixing the rate of diminution in the market value of the land at 50%, after referring to various Judgments rendered by the High Court of Kerala at different points of time taking different view in the matter, has observed in Paragraph 7 that the amount of compensation payable has to be determined keeping in view the WP.6318/2014 7 purpose and object of the statute and there cannot be any fixed formula. The Apex Court has pointed out that a fixed formula for determining the amount of compensation although may make the task of the Land Acquisition Officer or the reference court easier but each case has to be decided on its own merit keeping in mind the purpose and object of the Act and the methodology laid down as guiding factor. In paragraph 10 to 12 of the Judgment in Livisha's case, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 89 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Shaik Imambi vs Spl.Dy.Collector.(Land ... on 2 February, 2011

22. From a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of SHAIK IMAMBI Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION), TELUGU GANGA PROJECT - (2011) 11 SCC 639, it is clear that multiplier of 10 has been applied for determining the market value of the agricultural land including fruit bearing tree. Therefore, the multiplier to be adopted in a case like this cannot be more than 10. The learned District Judge has made a mistake in applying multiplier of 35 in arriving at the value of the fruit bearing tree for the purpose of awarding compensation."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 28 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Kerala State Electricity Board vs C.P. Sivasankara Menon on 29 July, 2008

"16. Now coming to the method to be adopted for valuing fruit bearing tree, the learned District Judge has taken the economic lifespan of the tree as 35 years and has multiplied the net amount derived as income from the tree by capitalising the income using 35 as multiplier. The Apex Court in WP.6318/2014 6 the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. C.P.SIVASANKARA MENON - 2009 AIR SCW 388, while referring to the earlier decision in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS - (2007) 6 SCC 792 has held that compensation payable to the land owners based on the yield from the tree ought to have been worked out by applying appropriate multiplier as was done in the case of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 and therefore remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent Court in respect of a similar matter arising from the State of Kerala.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 28 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Komath Kumba Amma And Ors. vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 17 November, 1999

In KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792, the Apex Court while considering the determination of compensation made based on the Judgment of Five Judges Bench of Kerala High Court in the matter of KOMATH KUMBA AMMA & OTHERS Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - 2000(1) KLT 542 (FB) wherein it was held that the annuity thereof shall be calculated on the basis of 5% return and fixing the rate of diminution in the market value of the land at 50%, after referring to various Judgments rendered by the High Court of Kerala at different points of time taking different view in the matter, has observed in Paragraph 7 that the amount of compensation payable has to be determined keeping in view the WP.6318/2014 7 purpose and object of the statute and there cannot be any fixed formula. The Apex Court has pointed out that a fixed formula for determining the amount of compensation although may make the task of the Land Acquisition Officer or the reference court easier but each case has to be decided on its own merit keeping in mind the purpose and object of the Act and the methodology laid down as guiding factor. In paragraph 10 to 12 of the Judgment in Livisha's case, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 87 - Full Document

Land Acquisition Officer, A. P vs Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao & Anr on 7 February, 2007

11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We may, WP.6318/2014 8 incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao [(2007) 3 SCC 526: 2007 AIR SCW 1145] wherein claim on yield basis has been held to be relevant for determining the amount of compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act; same principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistri Vs. Financial Commissioner & Revenue Secretary to Government of Punjab [1995 Supp (2) SCC 637], para 4 and Airports Authority of India Vs. Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3 SCC 527]. In Airports Authority [(2002) 34 SCC 527] it was held: (SCC p.533, para 14)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 150 - L S Panta - Full Document
1   2 Next