Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 46 (0.73 seconds)
Bhikabhai vs 3Rd
cites
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Ors vs Filip Tiago De Gama Of Vedem Vasco De Gama on 30 November, 1989
(2) In
the case of Karnal Improvement Trust v. Smt. Sumitra Devi (dead) by
LRs & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1981, relied by the learned
AGP, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has after noticing the decision in
case of Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama (supra), observed
that the relevant date of benefit under section 23(1-A) of the Act
is the date of the award of the Collector and since there was no
enhancement by the Reference Court in the compensation, the
claimants were not entitled to benefit under section 23(1-A) and 28
of the Act.
Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. Etc on 22 November, 1991
In rendering the majority judgment their
Lordship held that the decision of this Court in Union of India vs.
Zora Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 673, is not correct and in paragraph 70 of
the judgment the learned Judges held that the Parliament has given a
clear indication of its intention in Section 30 (1), which was a
transitional provision. The learned Judges held that since a clear
intention has been given in Section 30(1), there is no scope for any
speculation about the parliamentary intention by reading Section
23(1A) in isolation from Section 30(1) of the Act. [See SCC para
Section 28 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 March, 2009
(b) In
case of Mahesh Dattatrey Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra,(supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the proximity to developed
urbanized area needs to be necessarily considered while deciding on
the compensation to be paid for acquisition of land, on the basis of
evidence available. From the said judgment, observations in para 37
are required to be reproduced. They are, therefore, reproduced as
under: