Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.57 seconds)Administrator General Of West Bengal vs Collector, Varanasi on 16 February, 1988
35. The principles regarding the deduction to be applied while determining
the market value of land for compensation under the Act, 1894 have been
applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, providing for deduction ranging up to
75% depending on the nature of the land, its situation and stage of
development etc., vide Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha V. Amritsar Improvement
Trust 11 , (deductions between 20% and 33%), Administrator General of
West Bengal V. Collector, Varanasi 12 , (upheld deduction of 40%),
Chimanlal Hargovinddas V. Special Land Acquisition Officer Poona and
another 13 (deduction between 20% to 50%), Land Acquisition Officer
Revenue Divisional Officer Chottor V. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by and
others14, (deduction of 40% as development cost), Kasturi and others V.
State of Haryana, (1/3rd deduction was upheld on development), Land
Acquisition Officer V. Nookala Rajamallu and others15, (53% deduction),
11
(1982) 1 SCC 419
12
(1988) 2 SCC 150
13
MANU/SC/0071/1988
14
(1998) 2 SCC 385
15
(2003) 12 SCC 334
13
V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) V. Land Acquisition Officer 16 , (37%
deduction towards development), Viluben Jhalejar Contractor V. State of
Gujarat 17 , (20 to 50% towards development), Atma Singh V. State of
Haryana and another18, (20% deduction towards largeness of area), Subh
Ram and others V. State of Haryana and others19, (where valuation of a
large area of agricultural or undeveloped land has to be determined on the
basis of sale price of a small developed plot, standard deductions would be
1/3rd towards infrastructural space and 1/3rd towards infrastructural
developmental cost, i.e. 2/3rd % i.e. 67%), Andhra Pradesh Housing Board
V. K. Manohar Reddy and others20 (deductions on account of development
could vary between 20% to 75%), Special Land Acquisition Officer and
another V. M.K. Rafiq Sahib21, (60% deduction).
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Ram Kanwar vs State Of Haryana on 27 November, 2014
18. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal V. Collector 5 and
after that, in Ram Kanwar V. State of Haryana 6 has held that given the
statutory intention behind the term market value is that the sale exemplar
reflecting the price paid by the willing buyer to a willing seller would be the
most relevant piece of facts for determining such value.
Major General Kapil Mehra And Ors. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 24 December, 2010
19. Concerning factors of comparable sales, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Major General Kapil Mehra V. Union of India and another7 has referred to
its earlier decision in Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others
V. K.S. Gangadharappa and another 8, and has observed that element of
speculation is reduced to a minimum if underlying principles of fixation of
market value with reference to comparable sales are satisfied, i.e.,(i) when the
sale is within a reasonable time of the date of Notification under Section 4(1);
Kar. Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board vs K.S. Gangadharappa & Anr on 15 April, 2009
19. Concerning factors of comparable sales, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Major General Kapil Mehra V. Union of India and another7 has referred to
its earlier decision in Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others
V. K.S. Gangadharappa and another 8, and has observed that element of
speculation is reduced to a minimum if underlying principles of fixation of
market value with reference to comparable sales are satisfied, i.e.,(i) when the
sale is within a reasonable time of the date of Notification under Section 4(1);
The Special Land Acquisition ... vs Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib on 19 March, 2002
Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha And Ors. vs Amritsar Improvement Trust And Ors. on 1 October, 1981
35. The principles regarding the deduction to be applied while determining
the market value of land for compensation under the Act, 1894 have been
applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, providing for deduction ranging up to
75% depending on the nature of the land, its situation and stage of
development etc., vide Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha V. Amritsar Improvement
Trust 11 , (deductions between 20% and 33%), Administrator General of
West Bengal V. Collector, Varanasi 12 , (upheld deduction of 40%),
Chimanlal Hargovinddas V. Special Land Acquisition Officer Poona and
another 13 (deduction between 20% to 50%), Land Acquisition Officer
Revenue Divisional Officer Chottor V. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by and
others14, (deduction of 40% as development cost), Kasturi and others V.
State of Haryana, (1/3rd deduction was upheld on development), Land
Acquisition Officer V. Nookala Rajamallu and others15, (53% deduction),
11
(1982) 1 SCC 419
12
(1988) 2 SCC 150
13
MANU/SC/0071/1988
14
(1998) 2 SCC 385
15
(2003) 12 SCC 334
13
V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) V. Land Acquisition Officer 16 , (37%
deduction towards development), Viluben Jhalejar Contractor V. State of
Gujarat 17 , (20 to 50% towards development), Atma Singh V. State of
Haryana and another18, (20% deduction towards largeness of area), Subh
Ram and others V. State of Haryana and others19, (where valuation of a
large area of agricultural or undeveloped land has to be determined on the
basis of sale price of a small developed plot, standard deductions would be
1/3rd towards infrastructural space and 1/3rd towards infrastructural
developmental cost, i.e. 2/3rd % i.e. 67%), Andhra Pradesh Housing Board
V. K. Manohar Reddy and others20 (deductions on account of development
could vary between 20% to 75%), Special Land Acquisition Officer and
another V. M.K. Rafiq Sahib21, (60% deduction).
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 21 July, 1988
35. The principles regarding the deduction to be applied while determining
the market value of land for compensation under the Act, 1894 have been
applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, providing for deduction ranging up to
75% depending on the nature of the land, its situation and stage of
development etc., vide Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha V. Amritsar Improvement
Trust 11 , (deductions between 20% and 33%), Administrator General of
West Bengal V. Collector, Varanasi 12 , (upheld deduction of 40%),
Chimanlal Hargovinddas V. Special Land Acquisition Officer Poona and
another 13 (deduction between 20% to 50%), Land Acquisition Officer
Revenue Divisional Officer Chottor V. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by and
others14, (deduction of 40% as development cost), Kasturi and others V.
State of Haryana, (1/3rd deduction was upheld on development), Land
Acquisition Officer V. Nookala Rajamallu and others15, (53% deduction),
11
(1982) 1 SCC 419
12
(1988) 2 SCC 150
13
MANU/SC/0071/1988
14
(1998) 2 SCC 385
15
(2003) 12 SCC 334
13
V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) V. Land Acquisition Officer 16 , (37%
deduction towards development), Viluben Jhalejar Contractor V. State of
Gujarat 17 , (20 to 50% towards development), Atma Singh V. State of
Haryana and another18, (20% deduction towards largeness of area), Subh
Ram and others V. State of Haryana and others19, (where valuation of a
large area of agricultural or undeveloped land has to be determined on the
basis of sale price of a small developed plot, standard deductions would be
1/3rd towards infrastructural space and 1/3rd towards infrastructural
developmental cost, i.e. 2/3rd % i.e. 67%), Andhra Pradesh Housing Board
V. K. Manohar Reddy and others20 (deductions on account of development
could vary between 20% to 75%), Special Land Acquisition Officer and
another V. M.K. Rafiq Sahib21, (60% deduction).