Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 50 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Bijender Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 27 November, 2017
13. Accordingly, we modify the order under
challenge and assess the compensation of land without
adopting the belting system by applying the yardsticks in laid
down in Besco Limited case (supra) as well as Bijender
and Others (supra) and also taking note of Ext.A9, at the
rate of Rs.10,00,000/- Rupees ten lakhs only) per Are. The
appellants are entitled to all the statutory benefits already
awarded by the Reference court.
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad And Ors. vs Rajendra Bahadur Srivastava And Anr. on 24 January, 1994
In U.P.Awas Evam
Vikas Parishad and Ors. (supra), the question involved was
with regard to the interpretation of sub section (2) of Section
50 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act 1894. While dealing
with the aforementioned question of law, in paragraph 47
following observations were given:
Union Of India & Ors. Etc vs Mangatu Ram Etc on 29 April, 1997
34) The acquired land having a frontage abutting the
highway/main road always has a better value as compared
to the land, which is away from the highway/main road.
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).
1