Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)Avinash Dhavaji Naik vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 April, 2009
10. The learned LA Judge in his finding has stated that
though map of Salgarah Mouja was produced but there is no clear
evidence that the sale instances as produced by the claimants are
adjacent to the acquired land. Relying upon a decision reported in
2009 AIR SCW 3892 (Avinash Dhavaji Naik V. State of
Maharashtra), the learned L.A. Judge held that the potentiality of
land for the purpose of development as also for building purpose
would depend upon large number of factors. According to him, all
those factors were not taken into consideration by the L.A.
Collector while assessing the compensation. Further, the nature of
development of the surrounding area and availability of the land,
prospect of development and productivity, all those were not
considered. He found there was possibility of development of
agriculture and rice production. Considering all these factors, the
L.A. Judge has concluded that the valuation of the land would be
Rs. 5.00 lakhs per kani instead of Rs. 1.00 lakh per kani as given
by the L.A. Collector. However, he has rejected the claim of
Rs.50,000/- for loss of future income from agricultural products on
the ground that to substantiate his claim, the claimant did not
produce any documentary evidence. Accordingly, both the issues
were decided by the learned L.A. Judge as aforestated.
Section 17 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
1