Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)
Daljeet Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 29 March, 2019 cites

Wadi vs Amilal And Ors. on 12 July, 2002

A perusal of the award would also go on to show that the Reference Court also noted that the exact location of the sold land was not clear while referring to Exts.P-1 to P-3, which were post-dated having been sold on 26.08.2008 but as noticed, there was a considerable increase in the market price, as such. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the additional evidence which has been sought to be brought on record, which is also by way of site-plans, showing the other land in the locality including the one acquired for the Bus Stand and for the Police Lines, would only help this Court in adjudicating the issue in a proper perspective. Accordingly, the applications for additional evidence are 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -5- liable to be allowed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, as it would help the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Wadi Vs. Amilal & others 2004 (1) Scale 82, North Eastern Railway Adminstration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs 2008 (8) SCC 511, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & another 2012 (8) SCC 148 and Union of India Vs. K.V.Lakshman & others 2016 AIR (SC) 3139, for the said proposition. No prejudice, as such, would be caused to the State also as the awards could not have been produced at an earlier point of time, since Annexure A-1 is for the notification dated 30.06.2006 and was passed on 21.03.2011 whereas Annexure A-5 has been at a subsequent point of time, passed on 06.03.2014, for the notification dated 02/10.12.2002. Keeping in view the fact that the said award was also passed at a subsequent point of time, it cannot be said that the landowners were filling up the lacunas and to fill up their weak points. Accordingly, the said applications for additional evidence are allowed and the documents annexed with the applications are taken on record, for necessary adjudication.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 73 - Full Document

North Eastern Railway Administration, ... vs Bhagwan Das (D) By Lrs on 11 April, 2008

A perusal of the award would also go on to show that the Reference Court also noted that the exact location of the sold land was not clear while referring to Exts.P-1 to P-3, which were post-dated having been sold on 26.08.2008 but as noticed, there was a considerable increase in the market price, as such. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the additional evidence which has been sought to be brought on record, which is also by way of site-plans, showing the other land in the locality including the one acquired for the Bus Stand and for the Police Lines, would only help this Court in adjudicating the issue in a proper perspective. Accordingly, the applications for additional evidence are 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -5- liable to be allowed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, as it would help the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Wadi Vs. Amilal & others 2004 (1) Scale 82, North Eastern Railway Adminstration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs 2008 (8) SCC 511, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & another 2012 (8) SCC 148 and Union of India Vs. K.V.Lakshman & others 2016 AIR (SC) 3139, for the said proposition. No prejudice, as such, would be caused to the State also as the awards could not have been produced at an earlier point of time, since Annexure A-1 is for the notification dated 30.06.2006 and was passed on 21.03.2011 whereas Annexure A-5 has been at a subsequent point of time, passed on 06.03.2014, for the notification dated 02/10.12.2002. Keeping in view the fact that the said award was also passed at a subsequent point of time, it cannot be said that the landowners were filling up the lacunas and to fill up their weak points. Accordingly, the said applications for additional evidence are allowed and the documents annexed with the applications are taken on record, for necessary adjudication.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 249 - D K Jain - Full Document

Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012

A perusal of the award would also go on to show that the Reference Court also noted that the exact location of the sold land was not clear while referring to Exts.P-1 to P-3, which were post-dated having been sold on 26.08.2008 but as noticed, there was a considerable increase in the market price, as such. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the additional evidence which has been sought to be brought on record, which is also by way of site-plans, showing the other land in the locality including the one acquired for the Bus Stand and for the Police Lines, would only help this Court in adjudicating the issue in a proper perspective. Accordingly, the applications for additional evidence are 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -5- liable to be allowed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, as it would help the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Wadi Vs. Amilal & others 2004 (1) Scale 82, North Eastern Railway Adminstration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs 2008 (8) SCC 511, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & another 2012 (8) SCC 148 and Union of India Vs. K.V.Lakshman & others 2016 AIR (SC) 3139, for the said proposition. No prejudice, as such, would be caused to the State also as the awards could not have been produced at an earlier point of time, since Annexure A-1 is for the notification dated 30.06.2006 and was passed on 21.03.2011 whereas Annexure A-5 has been at a subsequent point of time, passed on 06.03.2014, for the notification dated 02/10.12.2002. Keeping in view the fact that the said award was also passed at a subsequent point of time, it cannot be said that the landowners were filling up the lacunas and to fill up their weak points. Accordingly, the said applications for additional evidence are allowed and the documents annexed with the applications are taken on record, for necessary adjudication.
Supreme Court of India Cites 86 - Cited by 1364 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Union Of India vs K.V. Lakshman & Ors on 29 June, 2016

A perusal of the award would also go on to show that the Reference Court also noted that the exact location of the sold land was not clear while referring to Exts.P-1 to P-3, which were post-dated having been sold on 26.08.2008 but as noticed, there was a considerable increase in the market price, as such. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that the additional evidence which has been sought to be brought on record, which is also by way of site-plans, showing the other land in the locality including the one acquired for the Bus Stand and for the Police Lines, would only help this Court in adjudicating the issue in a proper perspective. Accordingly, the applications for additional evidence are 4 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -5- liable to be allowed under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, as it would help the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Wadi Vs. Amilal & others 2004 (1) Scale 82, North Eastern Railway Adminstration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs 2008 (8) SCC 511, Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & another 2012 (8) SCC 148 and Union of India Vs. K.V.Lakshman & others 2016 AIR (SC) 3139, for the said proposition. No prejudice, as such, would be caused to the State also as the awards could not have been produced at an earlier point of time, since Annexure A-1 is for the notification dated 30.06.2006 and was passed on 21.03.2011 whereas Annexure A-5 has been at a subsequent point of time, passed on 06.03.2014, for the notification dated 02/10.12.2002. Keeping in view the fact that the said award was also passed at a subsequent point of time, it cannot be said that the landowners were filling up the lacunas and to fill up their weak points. Accordingly, the said applications for additional evidence are allowed and the documents annexed with the applications are taken on record, for necessary adjudication.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 102 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Raghubans Narain Singh vs The Uttar Pradesh Government Through ... on 23 September, 1966

A perusal of Annexure P-6 would go on to show that the sale deed dated 19.12.2005, whereby the land was sold for Rs.21 lakhs, is also part of the private colony whereby land of Sector 33 of Suncity, was developed, which is also on the other side and closer to the Dhand road. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the market value which has been assessed, in the facts and circumstances, is very much justified. It has been held in Raghubans Narain Singh Vs. The Uttar Pradesh Government through Collector of Bijnor 1967 SCR (1) 489, by a Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court that the potentiality of the land 9 of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 07:52:40 ::: RFA-6790-2011 (O&M) & others connected cases -10- should be taken into consideration and what a willing purchaser would pay to the willing seller, having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages, and potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner, excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purposes for which the property is compulsorily acquired and record of any building activity in the neighbourhood, which were factors to be taken into consideration. Keeping in view the said observations and on account of the fact that the land is in the close vicinity, in Sector 21 which has been developed and fell within the Municipal limits and had potential value to be utilized, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court was well justified, as such, in fixing the market value @ Rs.430/- per sq.yard and there is no scope for enhancement and neither the appeals of the State, in the facts and circumstances, are liable to be allowed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 158 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Daljeet Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 27 September, 2013

The present judgment shall dispose of 10 appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') out of which, 5 appeals bearing RFA-6790 to 6793-2011 and RFA-4698-2012 are filed by the landowners and remaining 5 appeals bearing RFA-566 to 570-2012 are filed by the State, against the common award dated 21.03.2011, passed by the Reference Court, Kaithal. Facts have been taken from RFA-6790-2011 titled Daljeet Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & others.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 Next