Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.26 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Raj Bala vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 July, 2003
26 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner herein has relied upon the
same arguments which were addressed by the counsel for the
petitioner in the case of Raj Bal Vs UOI on the aspect if this reference
court does not consider the sale deeds proved by the petitioner in his
evidence, however not admitted by the counsel for the petitioner, for
fixing the market value of the acquired land and the reference court
agrees with the rate fixed by the LAC as per the indicative price fixed
by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi then the petitioner is entitled to
increase @ 11.5% per annum on the compensation amount assessed
by the LAC from 09.08.2001 i.e. the date of indicative price fixed by
the Govt. for agricultural land to 18.07.2003 i.e. the date of
notification u/s 4 of the LA Act. In this context, the counsel for
petitioner has relied upon the aforesaid judgment dt. 11.05.2006
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LA Appl. No.866/2005
along with other LA Appl nos.
Sh. Mahender Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 May, 2006
27 Since, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid cases
i.e. Mahender Singh & Gajraj Singh (Supra) has given compounded
increase @ 11.5% annually on the compensation awarded, therefore,
my decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgments of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also the award/ judgment dt.
14.07.2008 passed by this reference in LAC No.226/1/07 entitled Raj
Bal Vs UOI & Anr. Thus, I hold that the petitioner herein is entitled to
compounded increase @ 11.5% annually on the compensation
amount of Rs.15.70 lacs per acre fixed by this reference court of the
land in question as per his full share 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
36
assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/- per acre enhanced) as on
18.07.2003. The petitioner has not led any evidence for other claims
as averred in the reference petition, therefore, he is not entitled for
the same. These issues are answered accordingly.
Chet Ram Vashisht And Ors. vs Union Of India on 7 August, 1990
In the reported judgment dt. 19.04.1991 titled as Chet Ram & Ors. Vs
UOI 44 (1991) DLT 378 (DB), it was held by the Hon'ble High Court
that :
Rameshwar Solanki vs Union Of India on 3 February, 1995
Even in the cases of
A. Mangla Gauri and Rameshwar Solanki (Supra) relied upon by the
claimants, 1/3 deduction was held to be just and fair. Ex.P-3 in our
opinion could not have been ignored by the Ld. Reference Court.
Golden Rule of Averages could have been safely applied by the
Reference Court for determining the fair market value of the land.
Ex.R-4 indicates the value of the agricultural land in village Mundaka
@ Rs.1 lakh per bigha. This sale deed was executed on 14.03.1994 i.e.
nearly 6 months subsequent to the date of notification dt. 15.10.1993
issued under section 4 of the Act while Ex.P-3 was executed on
27.02.1990 whereby the land in village Mundaka was sold for
Rs.1,25,000/- per bigha. Giving a reasonable increase on the value
reflected in Ex.P-3 for the intervening period of 3 years, the amount
would come to nearly Rs.1,70,000/- per bigha while reducing the
amount of R-4 at the same rate for the intervening period of 6 months,
the amount would come to Rs.94,000/- per bigha and average of both
of them would give market value of Rs.1,32,000/- per bigha.''
Kehar Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State Through Land Acquisition ... on 11 April, 1991
(b) The claimants would be entitled to increase in the
awarded amount of comepnsation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th
November, 1996 (the date of notification under section 4 under
the Act) @ 11.5% compounded annually on the compensation
awarded by the Reference Court/ Collector that would roughly
give them total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,904.68 p. Per
bigha.....''
19
In the reported judgment in LPA No.279 of 1984 as Kehar Singh &
Ors. Vs Punjab State through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab,
PWDB & R, Jullundur & Ors 148 the Punjab Law Reporter (Vol.
Ludhiana Improvement Trust vs Brijeshwar Singh Chhal & Anr. Etc on 19 March, 1996
In the judgment
dt.19.03.1996 reported as Ludhiana Improvement Trust Vs
Brijeshwar Singh Chhal & Anr. (1996) 9 SCC 188, it was held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
Smt. Indira Sohan Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Union Of India on 25 October, 1996
In terms of the judgments of the High Court and as approved
by the Supreme Court in Om Prakash's case (Supra) and by the
High Court in Jai Lal's case, the claimants would certainly be
entitled to higher compensation than the one awarded by the
reference court.''
Pohla Singh @ Pohla Ram (D)By Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 5 May, 2004
In the reported judgment dt. 25.07.1995 titled as Topandas
Kundanmal, since deceased thereafter by his heirs and LRs & Ors. Vs
State through the Land Acquisition Officer, Jamnagar & Ors. (1995) 5
SCC 336, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :