Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.43 seconds)
The Special Tahsildar (L.A) vs T.Bagalon ... 1St on 14 December, 2011 cites

Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha And Ors. vs Amritsar Improvement Trust And Ors. on 1 October, 1981

Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust[(1982) 1 SCC 419], this Court indicated that deductions for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can, together, come up to as much as 53 per cent. But the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in the case of large areas, for the reason that the former reflects the 'retail' price of land and the latter the 'wholesale' price."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 180 - A P Sen - Full Document

Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) By Lrs vs State Of Gujarat on 13 April, 2005

"15. Learned counsel for the Parishad submitted that out of the rate determined with reference to Ext.C-141 a deduction of at least 30% should be made towards development charges. He attempted to draw support from the decision of this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 4 SCC 789]. The said decision is not relevant. It does not lay down any proposition that while calculating the market value of an acquired land, with reference to market value determined by courts/tribunal for similar land, any deductions should be made for development cost. Therefore, we reject the contention that 30% should be deducted."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 852 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Administrator General Of West Bengal vs Collector, Varanasi on 16 February, 1988

"27. Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi [(1988) 2 SCC 150]contains a precise statement as to the concept of deducting development cost. This Court stated: (SCC p. 157, para 12) "12. It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. . The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued . is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical layout could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture, etc. are to be made. In Brig.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 332 - Full Document

Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 21 July, 1988

In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(1988) 3 SCC 751], this Court held: (SCC pp. 755-56, para 4) "4. (15) . a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a layout, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 832 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

K.S. Shivadevamma And Ors. Etc vs Assistant Commissioner And Land ... on 8 December, 1995

In K.S. Shivadevamma v. Asstt. Commr. & Land Acquisition Officer [(1996) 2 SCC 62] this Court held: (SCC p. 65, para 10) "10. It is then contended that 53% is not automatic but depends upon the nature of the development and the stage of development. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends upon development need in each case. Under the Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33-1/3% is required to be deducted. Where the development has already taken place, appropriate deduction needs to be made. In this case, we do not find any development had taken place as on that date. When we are determining compensation under Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. In view of the obligation on the part of the owner to hand over the land to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities and his requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains, electricity, etc. the deduction of 53% and further deduction towards development charges @ 33-1/3%, as ordered by the High Court, was not illegal."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 120 - Full Document
1   2 Next