Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 55 (0.86 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Ors vs Seneth Munda & Ors on 10 March, 2010
140. The case of Seneth Munda (supra) arises from the judgement
of this court in F.A. No. 107 of 2003 (Union of India through Defence
Estate Officer Vs. Seneth Munda and others) and the matter was
arising out of acquisition of property under the aforesaid Act of 1952
but on account of delay in appointment of arbitrator, solatium @ 20%
and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of acquisition i.e.,
01.04.1987 till the date of award i.e., 22.06.2003 and post award interest
@ 12% was also allowed if the amount was not paid within stipulated
time . This Court in the 1st appeal modified the award only to the extent
that the rate of post award interest of 12% was reduced to 9% with a
further rider that if the same is not paid within three months, the
claimants would be entitled to post award interest @ 12% as per the
award. When the order was not complied, a contempt petition being
Contempt Case (C) No. 815 of 2007 was filed and this court vide order
dated 02.04.2009 recorded that it prima-facie appeared that the opposite
party had violated the order of the court by not paying the interest
@12% per annum from 22.06.2003 (after the award was passed) till
25.11.2006 (when the amount as per award was paid) and directed the
opposite parties to calculate and pay the interest for the aforesaid period
on the quantified amount of interest which was calculated in the award
dated 21.06.2003 amounting to Rs. 1,37,98,860.08 being interest @ 9%
from 01.04.1987 to 22.06.2003.
Union Of India & Ors vs Smt. Satyawati & Ors on 12 January, 1996
II.1.5. In the case at hand, it is admitted that 80% of the persons had
received the compensation without any protest or demur, and as
such, they are not entitled to any enhanced compensation.
II.1.6. The Act of 1952 does not provide for any specific period of
limitation for raising claims but clearly stipulates that the
acceptance or otherwise has to be communicated within a period of
15 (fifteen) days. It is the specific case of the Union of India that
even though the compensation was accepted by 80% of the persons
without any protest or demur, there is no communication of any
objection from their side. Reliance has been placed on the
judgement of Union of India v. Satyawati (Smt) (1996) 7 SCC 740
and Ors , paragraph 5.
Union Of India & Ors vs Munsha & Ors on 9 November, 1995
63. This Court finds that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Munsha and others (supra) is clearly
distinguishable on the facts of this case. In the said case the arbitrator
was appointed but no laches was found on the part of the Union of India
in delay in appointment of arbitrator as the claimants had not at all
indicated/communicated their non acceptance of the offer in writing or
otherwise. Inspite of the aforesaid, the appointment of arbitrator was
not in dispute and the only question was posed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court whether the Union of India was liable to pay interest to the
claimants for the delay in appointment of arbitrator.
The Requisitioning And Acquisition Of Immovable Property Act, 1952
Tribeni Devi And Ors vs Collector Of Ranchi on 25 January, 1972
In the said judgment, the High
Court by taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Smt. Tribeni Devi & Ors. Vs. Collector of Ranchi
(supra) was pleased to affirm the compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-
per acre. The reason given by the Learned Arbitrator for not
considering this Exhibit 4 is that the land in the present case was
situated near the railway Station and Bus Stand. However, the
Learned Arbitrator failed to take note of the fact that in the
deposition of witnesses of the claimants it has come that
Namkum railway station is situated within 3-4 kilometres from
south of their villages and the Tatisilway railway station also
exists near their villages and hence the reason given by the
Learned Arbitrator for not considering the Ext.4 is not justified.
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Chajju Ram (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors on 16 April, 2003
In the case reported in (2003) 5 SCC 568 (Union of India Vs.
Chajju Ram) it has been held with respect to the aforesaid Act of 1952
that it is a self-contained code. It lays down the procedure as well as
machinery for determining the amount of compensation and that the
provisions for payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition
Act would not ipso facto apply to the acquisition made under the said
Act of 1952 and that the provisions of the two Acts do not also provide
for the same scheme for acquisition.