Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.20 seconds)
Sh. Ishwar Chand ] Sons Of Sh. Ram Dutt vs Union Of India Through on 10 September, 2008 cites

Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai And Ors. vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition And ... on 14 November, 1984

Further in Rajjan Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors Vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Panam project, Godhra and Ors AIR 11 1995 Gujrat 170, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat that Collector has not merely to intimate parties about passing of award but he has to communicate essential contents of award, if not copy of award. The counsel for the respondents have not led any evidence on record that the essential contents of the award were communicated and the petitioners had constructive or actual knowledge of the award at the time of announcement of the award by the LAC and the reference petition is barred by limitation. Therefore, I hold that the reference petition has been filed within the period of limitation. 13 Now, I shall decide the issue nos.1 & 2. Both the issues are inter­connected and I shall decide both the issues together. The onus to prove these issues is upon the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners have claimed for enhancement in compensation of the land in question on the aforesaid grounds mentioned in the reference petition which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It has been held in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that while assessing the market value of the land which is sought to be acquired by the government, situation, nature, potential/ user and neighbouring land, etc, is to be considered. In this context, I would prefer to rely upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 116 - Full Document

Smt. Shakuntalabai & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 23 November, 1995

In the case of Shakuntalabai (Smt) & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as (1996) 2 SCC 152 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that when on record there is evidence of the value of the acquired land itself, then it is unnecessary to travel 13 beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the adjacent land. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 824 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Bal Ram (Shri) And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 March, 2003

14 The counsel for the petitioners, in support of his case, has proved on record the certified copies of khasra Girdawaries for the year 2004 to 06 which are Ex.P­1 & Ex.P­2 respectively and also the attested copies of khasra Girdawaries for the year 2000 to 2004 running into 11 pages collectively which are Ex.P­3 which reveals that the land in question was under cultivation prior or even after the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act. The counsel for the petitioners has also proved the certified copies of relevant pages of the field book for the year 1980­81 running into 7 pages collectively which is Ex.P­4. However, the counsel for the petitioners has further adopted the same evidence as led in the similar reference i.e. in LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal Vs UOI and has also filed & relied upon the judgment dt. 14.07.2008 passed by this reference court in LAC No.226/1/07 titled Raj Bal & Ors. Vs UOI. The counsel for the respondents have proved in 14 evidence the award in question as Ex.R­1, copies of sale deeds Mark­A, Ex.R/X­1 to Ex.R/X­3.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Krapa Rangiah vs Special Deputy Collector, Land ... on 5 January, 1982

In Krapa Rangiah Vs Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (1982) 2 SCC 374, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the area being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the selfsame notification for Housing Scheme it seems to us proper that the same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimant herein as was awarded by the High Court in Appeal No.50 of 1970. The Hon'ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation granted to the claimant by Rs. 2 per sq. yard. with consequential increase in solatium and interest. In view of the above judgments, the petitioners herein cannot be dis­entitled for enhancement in compensation of the land in question which is also situate in the same area, location and village i.e. Burari, Delhi. Therefore, my decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgments for enhancement in compensation of the acquired land in dispute in this reference. Thus, the uniform compensation for the land in question is fixed at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre i.e. the rate assessed by the LAC for category­A land and compounded increase @ 11.5% annually is also given on the compensation amount of Rs.15.70 lacs per acre fixed by this reference court of the land in question from the date i.e. 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003 which roughly comes to the total enhanced compensation of Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre (total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre ­ Rs.5,05,000/­ per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/­ per acre enhanced) as on 16 18.07.2003. The petitioners have not led any evidence for other claims as averred in the reference petition, therefore, they are not entitled for the said claim. Sh. Praveen Kumar/ petitioner no.3 who was unmarried had expired on 27.05.2007. Vide order dt. 26.05.2008 of this reference court, Sh.Ishwar Chand, Sh.Krishan Kumar, Sh.Pramod Kumar and Sh.Subodh Kumar have been substituted as the legal heirs of Sh.Praveen Kumar, therefore, the said LRs are entitled to receive the enhanced compensation in equal shares on behalf of Sh.Praveen Kumar/ petitioner no.3. These issues are answered accordingly. RELIEF 16 In view of my findings on the above issues, the petitioners are entitled to compensation for category A land at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre and the petitioners are also entitled to compounded increase @ 11.5% annually from 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003. Therefore, I fix the market value of the land bearing khasra nos.108/2 (4­16), 3 (4­16), 8 (4­16), 9 (4­16), 11/2 (2­17), 12/1 (1­04) & 12/2 (3­12) total measuring 26 bighas 17 biswas situate at village Burari, Delhi at Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre as on 18.07.2003 (i.e. total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre ­ Rs.5,05,000/­ per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/­ per acre enhanced) as per the statement u/sec. 19 of the LA Act acquired vide the award no.2/2005­
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 241 - Full Document

Shyam Sunder Agarwal & Co vs Union Of India on 9 January, 1996

06. The petitioners are entitled for the aforesaid enhancement in compensation according to their 1/5th share each of the said land. Besides it, the petitioners shall also be entitled to get additional amount u/sec. 23 (1A) of LA Act @ 12% per annum on the said increase from the date of notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act till the date of award 17 or dispossession, whichever is earlier. The petitioners shall also get solatium u/sec. 23 (2) of LA Act @ 30% on the said increase in compensation and interest u/sec. 28 of LA Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and @ 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation i.e. increase awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Apex court titled Sunder Vs UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. This reference is answered accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1784 - Full Document
1   2 Next