Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)Land Acquisition Officer And Mandal ... vs V. Narasaiah on 27 February, 2001
In Land
Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer V. V.
Narasaiah (supra), it was held that by virtue of Section 51-
A, a certified copy of a document registered under the
Registration Act, 1908 including a copy under Section 57 of
the Act may be accepted as evidence of the transaction
recorded in such documents. It is open to the Court to accept
the certified copy as reliable evidence and without examining
parties to the documents. This does not however preclude the
Court from rejecting the transaction itself as being malafide
or sham provided such a challenge is laid before the Court.
Collector, Raigarh vs Dr. Harisingh Thakur & Anr. And Vice ... on 27 October, 1978
In The Collector, Raigarh V. Dr. Harisingh Thakur
(supra), agricultural land had been acquired. There was
evidence to show that the lands were potentially building
sites. The finding was supported by the fact that the acquired
land had in fact been used for construction of staff quarters.
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 76 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Baldev Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab Through Collector on 7 August, 1996
It is pointed out that Baldev
Singhs case is no longer good law in view of the
subsequent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition
Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer V. V. Narasaiah
2001 (3) SCC 530. Secondly, it was submitted by Mr. Jain
that the learned Judge erred in relying upon Exhibit PC
produced by the claimants which was a sale deed pertaining
to an area of one kanal and 6-1/2 marlas only which was
contiguous to a main road. It was argued that Exhibit PC
could not be an exemplar relevant to the lands which had
been acquired which not only covered a much larger area but
were situated at some distance from any habitation or road.
It was also submitted that in any event having determined
the market value, the learned Judge erred in adding any
further sum on account of the alleged potential value of the
land and that the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre fixed by the
learned Judge for determining such potential value was
entirely speculative.