Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (1.96 seconds)Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958
Section 15 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd vs The Collector Of Hailakandi on 13 December, 1996
In the above context, it is necessary to advert to the decisions of the
Supreme Court in Kiran Tandon and Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd.(supra) relied
on by Mr. Patil. Here the Supreme Court has held that the burden of
proving that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is
Pallavi 22/45
::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2026 22:13:20 :::
23 J-FA-1766-2008 (C).doc
inadequate in that case, lies upon the Claimant being in the position of the
plaintiff. The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding to
determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced
before it including that produced by the other side. We find that in the
given case the Respondent (Claimant) has in clear terms proved that the
compensation awarded by the SLAO is inappropriate, negligible much less
legally untenable to say the least. On the parameters laid down in the said
Supreme Court decision, we have examined the Impugned Judgment of the
Reference Court in the paragraphs below.
Kanwar Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India on 30 October, 1998
80. Mr. Patil has placed reliance on the decision in Kanwar Singh & Ors.
(supra). This is to contend that when lands are situated in different villages
there is no need to rely on those reference decisions, in such cases.
However, it is clarified that potentiality of the land in terms of the
development including its proximity to the subject acquired land is of vital
importance in arriving at the market value for determining the
compensation. The Reference Court has duly considered the said
parameters, and therefore this decision, once again, does not come to the
aid of the Appellant.
Kasturi & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 12 November, 2002
24. Mr. Patil would then place reliance on the decision in Kasturi & Ors.
vs. State of Haryana7. In this case, the Supreme Court held that where there
is a difference between a developed area and an area having potential value
but not yet developed, a deduction of 20% towards development charges
rather than the usual one-third (1/3) was justified on the facts. Mr. Patil
would submit that the Reference Court, by neither deducting any
development charges nor providing a basis for not doing so, has grossly
erred in arriving at the amount of compensation.