Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.35 seconds)
The Dy. Chief Exe. Officer,M.I.D.C.Amt vs Shri Pradip Jogeshwar Babhulkar & 2 Ors on 2 April, 2016 cites

Sunanda Ukandrao Babhulkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 21 March, 2016

4] The maximum compensation is awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.6,45,000/- per hectare in Land Acquisition Case No.30 of 1997 (Pradip Babhulkar v. State of Maharashtra and others) in respect of land Survey/Gat No.93 admeasuring 7 H and 15 R of mouza Madkona, District Yavatmal. The Reference Court has placed reliance upon the maps produced at Exhibit 53 in respect of village Bhari, Exhibit 54 in respect of village Madkona and Exhibit 55 in respect of District Yavatmal.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 21 - R V Ghuge - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Bal Ram And Anr. on 20 January, 2004

22] Shri Loney, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Bal Ram and another reported in (2010) 5 SCC 747, which was a case of acquisition of the land for the plan development area around Palam Airport in the vicinity of Delhi. It is a short order passed by the Apex Court in respect of the land acquired by the same notification from 13 villages.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 192 - Full Document

Satpal Antil Etc vs Union Of India & Anr on 5 May, 1995

The High Court found that the nature/quality of the lands is by and large similar to the lands which were to be considered in the reported decision of the Apex Court in Satpal v. Union of India reported in (1997) 11 SCC 423. The High Court found that it would be unfair to discriminate between the landowners to pay more to some or less to others when the purpose of acquisition is the same and the lands are identical and similar, though lying in different villages. The Supreme Court found that the judgment of the High Court was fair and reasonable, and therefore, did not interfere in it. The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision cannot be disputed. There has to be finding about the nature and quality of the land covered by the comparable sale instance, and the land under acquisition. In the present case, I have already held that the sale instances cited to claim enhancement of ::: Uploaded on - 19/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:42:28 ::: fa650.02.J + .odt 33/42 compensation are not comparable with the lands under acquisition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 45 - G N Ray - Full Document

Anjani Molu Dessai vs State Of Goa & Anr on 7 December, 2010

23] The another judgment relied upon of the Apex Court is in the case of Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa and another reported in (2010) 13 SCC 710. Shri Loney, the learned counsel has invited my attention to paragraph 20 and 23 of the said decision, wherein the legal position explained is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered. It further holds that where there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be taken, as representing the market price. There cannot be any dispute about the proposition that the highest exemplar has to be taken into consideration. There is no such situation in the present case. The sale instances cited are not comparable. The said decision is of, therefore, no consequence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 356 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next