Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.48 seconds)
Abraham Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 22 July, 2010 cites

State Of Kerala vs Geevarghese Chacko on 29 July, 2008

In the above cases, the claimants had submitted before the Reference Court that the capitalisation method be adopted for determining the land value in these cases. However, except in LAA 507/2006 the capitalisation method has not been adopted. In the other three appeals the capitalisation method has not been adopted by the court below on the ground that the data therein were not reliable. We do not think that the reasoning adopted by the court below in rejecting the said data is sustainable. A perusal LAA 507/2006 etc. 13 of the records in this case shows that Exts.C1 to C3 have been properly proved. Therefore, in all the cases the capitalisation method can be adopted, instead of the method adopted by the Reference Court, of fixing the land value as per the categorisation adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer, on the basis of the locational advantages enjoyed by the acquired properties. Regarding the reliability of test tapping of rubber trees, it has been observed in State of Kerala v. Geevarghese (supra) at page 885 as follows:-
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - P C Kuriakose - Full Document

Airports Authority Of India vs Satyagopal Roy & Others on 15 March, 2002

14. The next question to be determined while proceeding to apply the capitalisation method is to decide on the correct multiplier that can be applied. According to the counsel for the appellants, the correct multiplier to be applied is 12. The Reference Court has applied the multiplier 10. The counsel for the second respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy {AIR 2002 SC 1423} wherein after considering a similar question, at page 1426, the issue has been concluded in the following words:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 134 - Full Document

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

However, this Court is not precluded from taking into consideration other circumstances such as, the potentiality and utility of the land acquired and awarding just compensation to the claimants who are deprived of their lands and other property." It is clear from the above observation that the multiplier in the said case has been sustained only in the peculiar facts thereof. We also notice that the above decision is by a Bench of two Judges whereas LAA 507/2006 etc. 16 the decision reported in AIR 2002 SC 1423 is by a Bench of three Judges. We further notice that this Court has adopted 10 as the multiplier in the case of rubber in a number of cases, considering the commercial value of rubber. Therefore, we adopt 10 as the multiplier in these cases also.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 150 - L S Panta - Full Document

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors on 6 December, 2004

11. The contentions of the counsel for the appellants are stoutly opposed by the learned Govt. Pleader Smt. Latha T.Thankappan as well as Shri. G.Reghunath, counsel for the second LAA 507/2006 etc. 9 respondent. Shri. G.Reghunath points out that none of the appellants have been examined in LAR 14/2004. On their behalf, only their power of attorney has been examined as A.W.1. The counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd. {(2005) 2 SCC 217} to contend that the evidentiary value of the testimony of a power of attorney holder is only of very limited probative value. Therefore, it cannot be held that there was any reliable evidence in these appeals to support the cases pleaded by the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1219 - H K Sema - Full Document
1