Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.45 seconds)
Maharashtra Idustrail Development ... vs Prabhudas Bhagwandas Gothale & Ors on 24 April, 2018 cites

Trishala Jain & Anr vs State Of Uttaranchal & Anr on 5 May, 2011

5. In the case of the claimant pertaining to First Appeal No.56 of 2006, it has been already held above that the sale deed pertaining to land located in Survey no.20/2 could be ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2018 02:20:49 ::: 91 FA56-06& ors.odt taken into consideration as a basis for estimating the market value of the land on the date when the Notification was issued under Section 32(2) of the MID Act. Applying the same principle, since the land of the respondent no.1 in the present case also is on the Yavatmal- Darwha road and it is adjoining the already existing industrial estate in village Lohara, like the land of the claimant pertaining to First Appeal No.56 of 2006, the same formula can be applied. On that basis, it can be held that the value of the land of the respondent no.1 in the present case would have been about Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare in the year 1992 and granting cumulative annual increment of 10% for three years upto 1995 when the said Notification was issued, it would come to Rs.1,33,100/-. Since the land in the present case is located on the other side of the Yavatmal- Darwha road, as compared to the land of the claimant in First Appeal No.56 of 2006 and its location is otherwise identical to the said land, for non-agricultural potentiality a further amount at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per hectare could be added. Some amount of guesswork is inevitable in such circumstances and while arriving at the said figure, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trishala Jain .vs. State of Uttaranchal (supra) have been taken into consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 471 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next