Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Kolkata Metropolitan Devt.Authority vs Gobinda Chandra Makal & Anr on 2 September, 2011
We make it clear that in terms of the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kolkata Metropolitan Development
Authority (supra) and Maya Devi (supra) as relied upon on behalf
of the KMDA, the relevant date for the purpose of determining the
compensation would be the date of the publication of the
Notification in the official gazette under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Balbir Singh Thr Legal Representative ... vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 19 April, 2018
The learned Counsel for the KMDA also supports the
submission of the appellant by relying upon two decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court namely, (i) Kolkata Metropolitan
Development Authority vs. Gobinda Chandra Makal & Anr.
reported in (2011) 9 SCC 207 and (ii) Maya Devi (Dead) through
3
Legal Representative and Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
reported in (2018) 2 SCC 474. It is submitted that both the
aforesaid decisions have clearly spelt out that in determining the
market value under Section 23(1) of the Act, the rise in the market
value after the publication of the Notification under Section 4(1)
of the Act should not be taken into account for the purpose of
determining the market value. It is the date of the publication of
the Notification under Section 4 which would be relevant for the
purpose of determining the compensation. The learned Counsel
for the claimant, however, submits that since the KMDA had
taken wrongful possession of the land earlier and thereafter on 4 th
April, 2003 for the purpose of determination of the compensation,
the relevant date would be 4th April, 2003. It is submitted that the
learned Judge did not fully accept the valuation report submitted
on behalf of the claimant and had modified a compensation
amount to Rs.1,20,000/- per decimals and on that basis the
compensation amount was revised.
1