Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)

V.G. Kulkarni vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer on 15 March, 1996

''Not much material has been placed before us which could help the court to determine the fair market value of the land in question while the petitioners have placed whole emphasis on the fact that the land sought to be acquired by the respondents vide their notification U/s 4 dt. 28.11.2002 is part of a fully developed commercial area and has great potential and they are entitled to the present market value prevalent in the area at the relevant time. The petitioners rely upon the public auction conducted by the DDA in relation to plot No. 70, Nehru Place, wherein the land was auctioned at a price of Rs.1,91,666/- per sq. mtr. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi further observed that it was concerned only with the fixation of a fair market price of the land, prima facie. While determining prospective use of the land or its future potential and development by itself, cannot be the only basis for the court to determine the market value of the acquired land. It is for the claimants to prove on record that the land or its surrounding areas have been fully developed at the time of notification. Granting of compensation is a mtter of serious consequence and thus cannot be based upon the element of conjuncture. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.G. Kulkarani Vs Special Land Acqusition Officer JT 1996 (4) SC 220 as well as Trilochan Singh Vs State of Punjab 1995 LACC 283 SC. Normally, the auction by public authorities of fully developed plots cannot be stated to be a fair guiding factor for determining the fair market value of the land sought to be acquired by the Government at a subsequent stage. Of course, location, potential, utility would be the relevant factors which the 10 court upon due proof by the claimant, may take into consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 37 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Special Deputy Collector & Anr. Etc vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Ors. Etc on 29 April, 1997

10 The issue nos. 2 & 3 are inter connected and I shall decided both the issues together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the petitioner. The petitioner has sought enhancement in compensation on the aforesaid grounds which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. Before considering & evaluating the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification i.e. 12.06.1997 U/sec. 4 of the 6 LA Act, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The basic test was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Dy. Collector & Anr. Vs Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Others, AIR 1997 SC 2625 and it was held that :
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 568 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Anil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India on 21 July, 2000

In the case of Anil Kumar Sharma Vs UOI 86 (2000) DLT 825 (DB), it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that acquired land was already developed and possessed of amenities. No reason to hold that fair market value of the land in vicinity as on the date of notification for similar plots would less than Rs.800/- per sq. mtr or less than Rs.345/- sq. yard. No scope for further deductions. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that the market value of the land in question situate at Ram Bagh area forming part of Delhi village/ Delhi Patti acquired vide the notification dt. 12.06.1997 u/s 4 of the LA Act was at Rs.6,300/- per sq. mtr.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 52 - Full Document
1   2 Next