Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.41 seconds)Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Arun Manohar Dange And Anr vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 18 January, 2016
In this context, we are fortified by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (Arun Manohar Dange and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rajgad, Alibag) reported in (2016) 13 Supreme Court Cases 319 mentioned supra, wherein it was held that the normal practice adopted by the Courts is to limit the percentage of deduction only by 1/3rd of market value. Further, it is well settled that deduction to be made towards development charges is generally one-third of the market value.
Udho Dass vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 21 April, 2010
20. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the land owners/claimants on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of (i) (Sagunthala (dead) through Lrs vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition and others) reported in (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 661 (ii) (A. Natesam Pillai vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Trichy) reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 118 and (iii) (Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana and others) reported in (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 51 to contend that the potential of the acquired lands in so far as it relates to use for which it is reasonably capable of being put in immediate or near future, must be given due consideration while fixing the compensation.
Satish And Ors vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 16 July, 2009
21. The learned counsel for the claimants/respondents also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Satish and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) reported in (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 758 to contend that for determining the market value of the acquired lands, the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions for purchase of the lands acquired or the adjacent lands possessing similar advantage needs to be considered. Further, the other factors required to be noticed is that the nature and quality of land, whether irrigated or unirrigated, facilities for irrigation, presence of fruit-bearing trees, location of the land, closeness to any road or highway, evenness of the land, existing of any building or structure and host of other factors are bearing for fixing the valuation of the lands.
Tejumal Bhojwani And Ors vs State Of U.P on 26 August, 2003
Rule of one-third deduction was reiterated in (2003) 10 SCC 525 [Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P.]; (2003) 12 SCC 642 [V.Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer]; (2004) 2 SCC 184 [H.P.Housing Board v. Bharat S.Negi] and (2004) 10 SCC 745 [Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority]. Therefore, by applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we feel that giving 1/3rd deduction towards development charges would be fair and proper to arrive at a just compensation. Therefore, if 1/3 deduction is made from Rs.58,860/- arrived at by the Reference Court based on Ex.C6, the market value for the acquired lands to be fixed would be Rs.39,240/-.
Thakarsibhai Devjibhai And Ors. vs Executive Engineer, Gujarat And Anr. on 11 January, 2001
In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another) reported in (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 584 to contend that if the quality, including potentiality of two areas of land is similar, then the distance between the two would not by itself lead to a change in their respective market value. It was further held that the distances, such as distance between the acquired land and the nearest town providing educational, business, industrial and institutional facilities, could be relevant for deciding the market value of the lands. Further it was held that where holding of each land holder in the acquired area is small, there is no justification for clubbing together the individual holdings, treating them as a large area and differentiating them from other similar lands and applying a lower market value to such holdings.
H.P. Housing Board vs Bharat S. Negi And Ors. on 27 January, 2004
Rule of one-third deduction was reiterated in (2003) 10 SCC 525 [Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P.]; (2003) 12 SCC 642 [V.Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer]; (2004) 2 SCC 184 [H.P.Housing Board v. Bharat S.Negi] and (2004) 10 SCC 745 [Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority]. Therefore, by applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we feel that giving 1/3rd deduction towards development charges would be fair and proper to arrive at a just compensation. Therefore, if 1/3 deduction is made from Rs.58,860/- arrived at by the Reference Court based on Ex.C6, the market value for the acquired lands to be fixed would be Rs.39,240/-.
Kiran Tandon vs Allahabad Development Authority & Anr on 23 March, 2004
Rule of one-third deduction was reiterated in (2003) 10 SCC 525 [Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P.]; (2003) 12 SCC 642 [V.Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer]; (2004) 2 SCC 184 [H.P.Housing Board v. Bharat S.Negi] and (2004) 10 SCC 745 [Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority]. Therefore, by applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we feel that giving 1/3rd deduction towards development charges would be fair and proper to arrive at a just compensation. Therefore, if 1/3 deduction is made from Rs.58,860/- arrived at by the Reference Court based on Ex.C6, the market value for the acquired lands to be fixed would be Rs.39,240/-.