Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.93 seconds)Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon vs Union Of India on 31 July, 1980
6. We have duly considered the submissions made at the bar. The Reference Court in determining the amount of compensation has misread document Ex. A. 12, which is an Award of another Reference Court in LAC No. 96/85. Subject matter of land therein was a plot of land situate at village Jhilmil Tahirpur, which had been acquired for public purpose through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 27.7.1981. The Collector Land Acquisition in that case had offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per bigha. Claimants feeling dissatisfied had sought reference and the Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation holding the fair market value as on 27.7.1981 to be at the rate of Rs. 625/- sq. yard.
Union Of India & Anr vs Avtar Singh & Anr on 4 April, 1984
This award of the Reference Court was challenged by Union of India in appeal preferred to this Court being RFA No. 365/89 ( Union of India v. S. Avtar Singh). The appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench on 14.8.1989. We are informed that no further appeal was preferred to Supreme Court and this fact has also been judicially noticed by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Devinder Gupta, J.)
Anil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India on 21 July, 2000
was a member in RFA No. 601/92 ( Anil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India) decided of 21.7.2000.
Kapur Chand Jain (Dead) And Ors. vs State Govt. Of H.P. And Ors. on 10 August, 1998
In case interest is held payable on solarium by the Supreme Court in the reference, which has been made in Kapur Chand Jain (dead) and others v. State Government of H.P. and others , the claimants will also be paid such interest.
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Ram Lal vs Union Of India on 21 August, 1996
5. Before the Reference court, the claimant/appellants placed reliance on numerous documents including copies of perpetual lease deeds, awards made by Reference Court and some plans. As regards perpetual lease deeds as instance for arriving at the market value of the acquired land, the Reference court held that the plots had been given for industrial use. The said instances were discarded observing that necessarily the market value would be much higher in case of industrial plots as compared to residential plots, therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon those instances. Ex.A.13 is a copy of the award of Reference court in Land Acquisition Case No. 14/87 ( Ram Lal v. Union of India) decided on 22.8.1987 pertaining to determination of amount of compensation situate in village Chokri Mubarkabad (New Rohtak Road) was relied upon. It was held as not relevant piece of evidence in determining the amount of compensation since it pertain to a plot of land, which located at a distance of 10 to 15 KM away from the acquired land.
Section 54 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
1