Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Administrator General Of West Bengal vs Collector, Varanasi on 16 February, 1988
In the case of Administrator Genl. of West Bengal (supra) the Apex Court has held that prices fetched for small plots cannot be safe basis for valuation of large tracts of lands and appropriate deduction for roads and other development expenses have to be made which can, together, come up to 53%.
M/S. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. vs Mst. Saiyadan (Deceased) By L. Rs., And ... on 14 October, 1993
9. There is no dispute that the area of acquired land is 114345 sq. ft. The Reference Court took into consideration four sale deeds dated 27-5-80, 10-7-81. 5-6-82 and 13-5-82 vide Exh. 50, 51, 52 and 53 respectively in which plots were sold @ Rs. 6.76, 9.18, 12.50 and 11.50 respectively and thereafter deducted 25% of the area and fixed compensation @ Rs. 6 per sq. ft. However, for the purpose of awarding compensation the Reference Court deducted 25% of the area since the acquired land is large type of land as compared to the lands involved in the sale deeds relied upon by the appellant. Thus, the Reference Court granted compensation in respect of an area of 85758 sq. ft. and held that the enhanced compensation comes to Rs. 5,14,558/-. The approach of the Reference Court cannot be sustained firstly having regard to the law laid down in M/s Printer's case that the Reference Court ought to have selected the sale deed which closely or nearly compares with the acquired land and thereafter the Reference Court ought to have made appropriate deductions having regard to the fact that the acquired land was big chunk of land as compared to the land involved in the sale deed which is taken as the basis for the purpose of fixing price of the acquired land.
K.S. Shivadevamma And Ors. Etc vs Assistant Commissioner And Land ... on 8 December, 1995
In the case of K.S. Shivadevamma (supra) the Apex Court has held that Circular issued by the Government under Section 47-A of Stamp Act for fixation of stamp duty and registration fee cannot be basis for determining the market value unless there is evidence of prevailing market value of the lands in the locality possessed of similar advantageous features.
Kiran Tandon vs Allahabad Development Authority & Anr on 23 March, 2004
In the case of Kiran Tandon (supra) the Apex Court has held that since the acquired land was situated in developed area and there was approach-road to the land and also power lines were available, deduction of 20% from the market value of the land was proper.
Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 January, 2006
Rishi Pal Singh & Ors vs Meerut Development Authority & Anr on 24 February, 2006
In the case of Rishi Pal (supra) the Apex Court has held that the sale deeds in respect of small tract of land can be relied upon for determining the market rate of large tracks of land specially when other relevant or material evidence was not available, by giving adequate discount in that behalf.
Ranvir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2005
In the case of Ranvir Singh (supra) the Apex Court has, inter alia, held that when market value of the acquired land is sought to be proved on the basis of comparable sale instances the burden to proof that the land acquired by sale transaction bear similar or same potentialities or advantageous features, lies on the claimant. The Apex Court has further held that award or judgment determining the amount of compensation is not conclusive but merely a piece of evidence.