Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.32 seconds)
Vidhya Ram & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 29 July, 2008 cites

Raj Bala vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 July, 2003

25 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners herein has relied upon the same arguments which were addressed by the counsel for the petitioners in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI on the aspect if this reference court does not consider the sale deeds proved by the petitioner in his evidence, however not admitted by the counsel for the petitioners, for fixing the market value of the acquired land and Page numbers the reference court agrees with the rate fixed by the LAC as per the indicative price fixed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi then the petitioners are entitled to increase @ 11.5% per annum on the compensation amount assessed by the LAC from 09.08.2001 i.e. the date of indicative price fixed by the Govt. for agricultural land to 18.07.2003 i.e. the date of notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. In this context, the counsel for petitioners has relied upon the aforesaid judgment dt. 11.05.2006 passed by the Hon' ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005 along with other LA Appl nos.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 77 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Rameshwar Solanki vs Union Of India on 3 February, 1995

Even in the cases of A. Mangla Gauri and Rameshwar Solanki (Supra) relied upon by the claimants, 1/3 deduction was held to be just and fair. Ex.P­3 in our opinion could not have been ignored by the Ld. Reference Court. Golden Rule of Averages could have been safely applied by the Reference Court for determining the fair market value of the land. Ex.R­4 indicates the value of the agricultural land in village Mundaka @ Rs.1 lakh per bigha. This sale deed was executed on 14.03.1994 i.e. nearly 6 months subsequent to the date of notification dt. 15.10.1993 issued under section 4 of the Act while Ex.P­3 was executed on 27.02.1990 whereby the land in village Mundaka was sold for Rs.1,25,000/­ per bigha. Giving a reasonable increase on the value reflected in Ex.P­3 for the intervening period of 3 years, the amount would come to nearly Rs.1,70,000/­ per bigha while reducing the amount of R­4 at the same rate for the intervening period of 6 months, the amount would come to Rs.94,000/­ per bigha and average of both of them would give market value of Rs.1,32,000/­ per bigha.''
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 329 - A K Srivastava - Full Document

Kehar Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State Through Land Acquisition ... on 11 April, 1991

(b) The claimants would be entitled to increase in the awarded amount of comepnsation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November, 1996 (the date of notification under section 4 under the Act) @ 11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the Reference Court/ Collector that would roughly give them total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,904.68 p. Per bigha.....'' In the reported judgment in LPA No.279 of 1984 as Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs Punjab State through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab, PWDB & R, Jullundur & Ors 148 the Punjab Law Reporter (Vol. CI­ Page numbers 1992­1), it was held by the Hon'b le Punjab & Haryana High Court that :
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Smt. Indira Sohan Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India on 25 October, 1996

' 'Belting is a fair principle to determine just and adequate compensation lest unjust award would ensure. When a large extent of land is acquired, land abutting the roads or developed area and interior land do not command the same market value. When it is proved that the lands are situated in a low­lying area, obviously the lands situated at a levelled area would command higher market rate than the lands situated in a low­lying area.' ' Page numbers In the reported judgment dt. 25.10.1996 passed by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.14553 of 1996 in the case entitled as Smt.Indira Sohan Lal (dead) by LRs Vs. UOI AIR 1997 SC 1907, it was held that :
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 23 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next