Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.42 seconds)Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Nirmal Singh & Etc.Etc vs State Of Haryana Tr.Collector on 26 September, 2014
Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation and are having
commercial establishments surrounding the land. The
Reference Court has relied only on the contention/objection
raised by the respondents without any supporting document.
This being the fact, the Reference Court, while determining the
market value of the land based on capitalization method, has
not relied on Exhibit P6-Sale deed dated 17th August, 2004 in
which the land belonging to the same locality was sold at
Rs.267/- per square feet and another sale deed dated 02nd
August 2004 wherein the land in the said sale deed was sold at
Rs.166/- per square feet. Without assigning any cogent reason
for fixing the amount at Rs.28.20 per square feet by the
Reference Court, is a gross under-valuation in the face of
overwhelming evidence on record. The appellants have not left
any stone unturned to exhaustively adduce evidence to show
that the land is having precious potentiality for all time to
come; and evidence on record of total 84 Exhibits is more than
enough to substantiate the marketability as also the
potentiality of the land. He further submitted that Exhibit P16
is a Revised Comprehensive Development Plan, which is
confirmed with the evidence of PW7, who is none other than
the Member/Engineer of Hubballi Urban Development Authority.
-6-
MFA No.100047/2016
Further, the evidence of PW6-Sub Registrar is the authentic
piece of evidence on market value of the property at Exhibit
P83 which is the Gazette Notification dated 04th November,
2004, even as per which, the market rate of the property in the
area is not less than Rs.190/- per square feet. The evidence
of PWs.1 to 7 with supporting documents at Exhibits P1 to P84
required detailed appreciation of evidence which has not been
done by Reference Court. He further submits that the
Reference Court has failed to arrive at the average market
value as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
NIRMAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR
reported in 2014 AIR (Civil-1053) wherein the guidelines issued
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were required to be followed.
He further submits that positive and negative factors in
appreciating the valuation of land, was not considered by the
Reference Court. The direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that a land having non-agriculture potentiality should be given
escalation in awarding compensation has not been considered
by the Reference Court. He further submits that even in the
event of de-escalation of compensation, considering the fact
that the land was acquired on 28th February, 2002, as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 AIR
SCW 73, which incidentally is from Karnataka, the lands in
-7-
MFA No.100047/2016
question would definitely fetch a market value at Rs.166/- per
square feet as per Sale Deeds produced at Exhibits P6, P7 and
P83. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the appeal.
Manoj Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 23 February, 2023
To
buttress his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ
KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
reported in (2018)13 SCC 96; and in the case of
CHANDRASHEKAR (D) BY HIS LRS AND OTHERS v. LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER reported in 2012 ACR
SCW 73; and in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. PREMLATA
reported in AIR ONLINE SC 465.
Chandrashekar (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Land Acquisition Officer & Anr on 22 November, 2011
To
buttress his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MANOJ
KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
reported in (2018)13 SCC 96; and in the case of
CHANDRASHEKAR (D) BY HIS LRS AND OTHERS v. LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER reported in 2012 ACR
SCW 73; and in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. PREMLATA
reported in AIR ONLINE SC 465.
Union Of India vs Premlata on 6 April, 2022
Section 17 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act
on 28th February, 2002. Considering the date of above
notification, we are of the view that it is appropriate to de-
escalate the market value of the vacant site of
Bhairidevarakoppa fixed at Rs.105/- per sq.feet at the rate of
10% for three years which comes to 30%. Upon de-escalation
at 30%, the amount comes to Rs.73.50 per sq.feet which is
rounded off to Rs.74/- per sq.ft. Applying the principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PREMLATA
(supra) and considering the facts and circumstances of the case
on hand, as already stated, if 40% deduction is ordered to be
made towards development charges, the same would be said to
be appropriate deduction and accordingly, if 40% is deducted
from the price of Rs.74/- per square feet now determined, the
same comes to Rs.44.40, which is rounded off to 44/- per
square feet. Accordingly, claimants are entitled for
compensation with all statutory benefits. For the aforesaid
reasons the impugned judgment and award requires to be
interfered with by this court. Hence, we answer Point No.2 and
3 partly in the affirmative.
1