Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Prabhakar Raghunath Patil & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 November, 2010
Similar view has been expressed in State of Madhya Pradesh and
others vs. Kashiram(dead) by L.Rs. and others, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 506 and
Prabhakar Raghunath Patil and others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2010)
13 SCC 107. The principle as laid down by the apex court firmly indicates to certain
flaws that may visit the assessment of the compensation. But in the case in hand,
the point is not the comparison of land value of the large tract of land with the
small piece of land but the objection is focused as to awarding the uniform rate to
inferior quality and category of the acquired land, such as tilla, doba, pukur, pukur
par and balu char. According to this Court, however small may be quantity of the
said category of land those cannot fetch the similar rate with that of viti, bastu,
chara and lunga and nal class of land. Accordingly, 20% shall be deducted for the
said category of land from the land value that has been awarded by the Land
Acquisition Judge. So far the other objections are concerned about use of the
highest sale instance from the sale instances appreciated by the Land Acquisition
Collector, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the said method.
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust(Regd) ... vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 27 April, 2012
In
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors.,
reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721, the apex court has held in the unequivocal terms
that the highest comparable exemplar from the comparable sale exemplars has to
be accepted. For purpose of reference, para-15 of the said report is reproduced
herein:
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Trishala Jain & Anr vs State Of Uttaranchal & Anr on 5 May, 2011
"From the records it has appeared that barring of few pieces of land, the land
acquired from the Mouja- Mainama falls under nal, viti and bastu class of land and
thus, for them if the uniform rate is awarded no injustice would be caused to the
appellants inasmuch as the Land Acquisition Collector had followed the same suit.
Grant of the uniform land value irrespective of their category is not permissible
unless that is persuasive in the context of the method that is applied inasmuch as
in Trishala Jain and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and another, reported in
(2011) 6 SCC 47, the apex court held that the value of sale of small pieces of land
can be taken into consideration for determining the value of large tract of land but
with a rider that the Court while taking such instances into consideration has to
make a reasonable deduction keeping in view of the other attendant
circumstances.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
State Of M.P vs Kashiram & Ors on 2 February, 2009
Similar view has been expressed in State of Madhya Pradesh and
others vs. Kashiram(dead) by L.Rs. and others, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 506 and
Prabhakar Raghunath Patil and others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2010)
13 SCC 107. The principle as laid down by the apex court firmly indicates to certain
flaws that may visit the assessment of the compensation. But in the case in hand,
the point is not the comparison of land value of the large tract of land with the
small piece of land but the objection is focused as to awarding the uniform rate to
inferior quality and category of the acquired land, such as tilla, doba, pukur, pukur
par and balu char. According to this Court, however small may be quantity of the
said category of land those cannot fetch the similar rate with that of viti, bastu,
chara and lunga and nal class of land. Accordingly, 20% shall be deducted for the
said category of land from the land value that has been awarded by the Land
Acquisition Judge. So far the other objections are concerned about use of the
highest sale instance from the sale instances appreciated by the Land Acquisition
Collector, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the said method.
Party Name : Union Of India vs Harendra Debbarma And Anr on 21 February, 2017
[Union of India vs. Sri Harendra Debbarma and another]
By the notification under No. 9(1)-REV/ACQ/V/2003 dated
11.02.2004, the land of the respondent no. 1 measuring 0.42
acres pertaining to CS plot no. 2994(P)(Dhepa) measuring
0.24 acres and CS plot no. 1691 (P) (Charra) measuring 0.18
acres under Khatian no. 434 of Mouja- Mainama under Tehsil-
Chailengta was acquired for purpose of construction of 44A
National Highway. After the purported inquiry, the Land
Acquisition Collector valued the acquired land dhepa [nal
class of land] at Rs.50,000/- per kani and cherra class of land
Page 2 of 8
at Rs.80,000/- per kani. Thus, the total compensation was
drawn up at Rs.97,280/-. The respondent no. 1, Sri Harendra
chandra Debbarma [the land loser] being dissatisfied,
pressed for reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act. The reference being Misc. L.A. 36 of 2009
was determined by the Land Acquisition Judge, North
Tripura, Kailasahar by the impugned judgment dated
21.01.2012 by enhancing the rate to Rs. 2 lakh per kani
irrespective of the class of land in lieu of Rs.80,000/- and
Rs.50,000/- per kani as was determined by the Land
Acquisition Collector. The reason for such enhancement is
available in the said judgment dated 21.01.2012 which reads
as follows: