Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.63 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Union Of India vs Amar Singh on 28 October, 1959
Firstly in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash's case (supra) and secondly the fact that in the case of Amar Singh (supra) the land was acquired on 20.10.79 while the notification was issued by the DDA under Section 11A of the Act, as stated, on 8.12.82. It is clear from the various judgments which are judicial precedents in relation to the land situated in the revenue estate of Bhorgarh adjacent to the acquired land that the same had received compensation of Rs. 82,255/- per bigha for acquisition of the land in the year 1982, then by any standards, the present claimants are certainly entitled to enhancement at least of some compensation for compulsive acquisition of their lands which was also their livelihood. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants also pointed out an apparent error in the award of the Collector as well as in the judgment of the reference which is apparent on the face of the record. It was argued that the Collector in his award had held as under:
Section 36 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957
Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India on 11 December, 1987
As this judgment of the High Court was pronounced on later point of time it had also considered the judgment in the case of Jai Lal (dead) through Lrs v. UOI where for notifications issued on 1st and 2nd June, 1983 for acquisition of land in the revenue estate of the same village, the High Court had granted compensation @ Rs. 82,255/- per bigha. Still another notification was issued for acquisition of land in village Bhorgarh for acquiring a land measuring about 52 acres for construction of godowns for Food Corporation of India etc. in the village Bhorgarh and the other two villages and the Supreme Court approved the grant of compensation to the claimants @ Rs. 82,255/- per bigha. as in 1979 as well as in 1982-83 the Government intended to acquire lands from the Revenue estate of village Bhorgarh and they were agricultural lands.
Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 January, 2006
and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. 2004 VIII AD (SC) 37 stated that there is hardly much of difference between the land of two villages as there was hardly any change of user despite such notification.
Jas Rath vs Union Of India (Uoi) [Along With Rfa Nos. ... on 27 April, 2006
28. Reference can also be made to a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Jas Rath v. Union of India (RFA No. 751/94 decided on 27th April, 2006) wherein the potential of the land was discussed as great length. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
Sarwan Singh Etc. Etc vs The State Of Punjab & Ors. Etc on 12 December, 1974
In the case of Sarwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1975) 1 SCC 284 the Supreme Court while taking a view that post notification sale instances are not very relevant for determination of market value but in regard to the potential and effect of development schemes held as under: