Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
V. Ramaswami Naidu And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 7 July, 1958
In the decision rendered by us in Ramasami Naidu v. State of Madras, we have held that solatium of 15 per cent is not payable in cases of acquisition under Madras Act 42 of 1956. Therefore, following that decision, we hold that the appellants are not entitled to the payment of solatium of 15 per cent, on the compensation fixed for the lands in question.
The Requisitioning And Acquisition Of Immovable Property Act, 1952
Section 1 in The Interest Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Sri Raja Vyricherla Narayana ... vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 23 February, 1939
In Raja Vyricherla Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Visagapatnam, AIR 1939 PC 98 the Judicial Committee had observed in dealing with the question of fixing the market value under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act thus--
The Interest Act, 1978
State Of Kerala vs P. P. Hassan Koya on 19 March, 1968
In State of Kerala v. P. P. Hassan Koya, AIR 1968 SC 1201, the Supreme Court had said that in instance of sale which is proximate in time to the date of the notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect or land similarly situate and with similar advantages and which is proved to be a transaction between a willing vendor and a willing purchaser would form a reliable guide for determining the market value. In that case the Supreme Court adopted the method of capitalization of return in the case of acquisition of land with buildings as there was no reliable evidence of instances of sales of similar lands with buildings proximate to the time of the date of the notification under Section 4(1).
Valia Maliyakkal Sayid Muhammad ... vs Sayid Muhammad Bin Alabi Ayidross ... on 28 March, 1939
There we have held, after referring to the decision in Attakoya v. Kunhikoya, ILR (1940) Mad 50 = (AIR 1939 Mad 877) and the decision of the Supreme Court above referred to, that if a person is compulsorily kept away from the possession of his property then he would be entitled to the payment of such compensation therefor and if there is a delay in the grant of such compensation he will be entitled in equity to interest on the quantified amount even though such quantification was done later and that he will be entitled to interest as per Section 1 of the Interest Act. We therefore hold that the appellants are entitled to interest on the compensation paid at 4 per cent. per annum.
1