Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Trishala Jain & Anr vs State Of Uttaranchal & Anr on 5 May, 2011
"5. It is seen that among the references, L.A.R
Nos.59, 62 and 63 of 2013 were disposed of by a common
award and the remaining cases were disposed of by
separate awards following the common award in the said
cases. The common award passed in L.A.R Nos.59, 62 and
63 of 2013 indicates that the only document produced by
the claimant to justify the enhancement sought is Ext.A1
dated 14.08.2008. Ext.A1 is a document executed about
2024:KER:85134
LA.APP. NO.75/2023 & con. cases
89
two years prior to the date of notification. The certified
copy of the deposition given by the person who has
executed Ext.A1 in another land reference case namely
L.A.R. No.25 of 2013 was produced by the claimant as
Ext.A6. It was noticed by the reference court that the
vendor of Ext.A1 document has deposed in L.A.R. No.25
of 2013 that it was a transaction between him and his
brother-in-law. The reference court, in the circumstances,
having regard to the decision of the Apex court in Trishala
Jain v. State of Uttaranchal, 2011 (6) SCC 47, did not
place any reliance on the said document. As it has come
out that Ext.A1 document was a transaction entered into
between close relatives, the reference court cannot be
found fault with for having not accepted the same for
refixation of the land value. If Ext.A1 is discarded, there is
nothing else on record to justify the enhancement granted
by the reference court. It appears that the reference court
has raised the land value substantially, having regard to
the locational importance of the lands as reported by the
Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C1 report. It may not be
safe to decide the land value solely based on the
locational importance of the property. It is seen that there
was dispute between the parties even as regards the basic
document on the basis of which the land value was fixed
by the land acquisition officer. As rightly noted by the
reference court, the State has not adduced any evidence
in the matter, not even formal. Even the notes of award
prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer were not made
available to the court. As such, this court is also unable to
fix the land value appropriately. As the materials available
on record are grossly insufficient, the only option available
2024:KER:85134
LA.APP. NO.75/2023 & con. cases
90
to the court, in the circumstances, is to remit the matters
for fresh disposal.
Kolkata Metropolitan Devt.Authority vs Gobinda Chandra Makal & Anr on 2 September, 2011
In the light of
the ratio decidendi in Kolkata Metropolitan Development
Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal and Another, AIR
2011 SC 3834, the date of publication of section 4(1)
notification for the purpose of section 23 is the date of
publication in the Gazette. The claimant is also entitled to
30% solatium on the market value as fixed as per section
23(1) firstly. The amount already awarded as
compensation and received by the claimant shall be
adjusted to the amount due as the total sum of the
amounts under section 23(1) firstly, section 23(1-A) and
section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
balance outstanding which is the excess compensation
awarded will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum
for a period of one year from the date of taking possession
of the land and for the period after one year the said
excess compensation awarded will carry interest at the
rate of 15% per annum, as per section 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894."
Bijender Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 27 November, 2017
We
would be relying our observation by referring to the findings of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bijender and Others (supra).
The same reads as under:
Article 300 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs Mangatu Ram Etc on 29 April, 1997
Indeed, farther the land from the highway/main road, lesser
the value of such land. In such a situation, where large
pieces of land having different locations are acquired, Belting
System is considered apposite for determining the market
value of the lands. (see - Union of India & Ors. vs. Mangatu
Ram & Ors. 1997 (6) SCC 59 and Andhra Pradesh Industrial
Infrastructure Corporation Limited vs. G. Mohan Reddy &
Ors. 2010 (15) SCC 412).
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
1