Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.31 seconds)

State Of Kerala vs Mathew ( M. M. ) And Anr on 18 August, 1978

46. Coming to the decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in Mathew (supra), we find none of the decisions of the Supreme Court especially in Pal Singh(supra) and Central Warehousing Corporation (supra) and the statutory framework of the Act which has been taken note by us were considered. Hence, we are of the view that the decision cannot be seen as laying down an absolute proposition of law. Thus, we reject the argument of the State and hold that the market value fixed in an earlier acquisition under the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be looked into for the purpose of determining the market value under the new Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 220 - J Singh - Full Document

G.M., Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr on 31 July, 2008

23. Even if we are inclined to accept the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the appellants that document No.3623 of 2008, mentioned in Ext A15 be considered as an exemplar, we will not be able to arrive at the correct market value of the land. This is for the simple reason that the exemplars which are in proximity with the land acquired is of the year 2008. Therefore, only if there is no legal impediment in taking the documents mentioned in Ext.A15 as exemplars, we will be justified in applying the escalation which is permissible going by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another [2008 (14) SCC 745]. But still the documents mentioned in Ext.A15 as exemplars alone will not be sufficient for the L.A.A. No.226 of 2020 and Connected cases 76 2025:KER:8449 purpose of determining the market value. There should be other documents also for comparison to arrive at a market value. In the peculiar facts of this case, we are left with no option but to take Ext.B4, which is 184 meters away from the land acquired, although it is not advantageous compared to the land acquired and the land covered by Ext.A15.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 331 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next