Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)Hafix Ismail Shaikh And Ors. vs Special Land Acquisition Officer And ... on 7 March, 2005
"It is essential to earmark appropriate deductions
out of the market value of an exemplar land, for each of
the two components referred to above. This would be the
first step towards balancing the differential factors. This
would pave the way for determining the market value of
the undeveloped acquired land on the basis of market value
of the developed exemplar land.
Shalini Vaman Godbole vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 22 June, 2009
14. The only question which now remains as to in which
situation can the Appellant rely on the ready reckoner for the year
1994 for claiming the compensation. In this regard, we are inclined to
accept the submissions of Mr.Datar in view of the two earlier
Judgments referred by him passed by this Court in this behalf.
Mr.Datar has invited out attention to the G.R. dated 31/10/1994
wherein it is clearly laid down that the valuation given in the ready
reckoner was an important consideration and the valuation arrived at
by different methods viz. sale instances, potentiality and the price
mentioned in the ready reckoner should be taken into consideration
and whichever was higher, should be granted as compensation. This
Court has upheld the efficacy and application of this G.R. in such
situation as mentioned in the Judgments of Shalini Godbole (supra)
and The Municipal Corporation of City of Thane (supra). Thus, it
was incumbent on the SLAO to have taken into consideration the
ready reckoner for the year 1994 in deciding the rate of
compensation. Such exercise was not done by the SLAO. The
impugned Award passed by him shows that he has referred to the rate
as per the ready reckoner but he has referred to the rate given in the
URS 12 of 18
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2018 01:37:35 :::
13 FA 846-12 Judgment.doc
ready reckoner for the year 1992. He, on his own, had considered rise
of 10% for the year 1994 and fixed the price at the rate of Rs.300/-
per sq. meter in respect of the present Plot No.2. The SLAO has
further mentioned that the lands under acquisition fell in Division
No.1, Sub-Division No.2, Column No.4 of the said ready reckoner. As
against this, the Appellant has produced a certified copy of the ready
reckoner for the year 1994. The said ready reckoner was provided to
him vide the letter dated 01/11/2011 by the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Bhiwandi-1. The said copy is a certified copy and is
produced on record at Exh.54.
The Municipal Corpn. Of City Of Thane vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 6 September, 2017
14. The only question which now remains as to in which
situation can the Appellant rely on the ready reckoner for the year
1994 for claiming the compensation. In this regard, we are inclined to
accept the submissions of Mr.Datar in view of the two earlier
Judgments referred by him passed by this Court in this behalf.
Mr.Datar has invited out attention to the G.R. dated 31/10/1994
wherein it is clearly laid down that the valuation given in the ready
reckoner was an important consideration and the valuation arrived at
by different methods viz. sale instances, potentiality and the price
mentioned in the ready reckoner should be taken into consideration
and whichever was higher, should be granted as compensation. This
Court has upheld the efficacy and application of this G.R. in such
situation as mentioned in the Judgments of Shalini Godbole (supra)
and The Municipal Corporation of City of Thane (supra). Thus, it
was incumbent on the SLAO to have taken into consideration the
ready reckoner for the year 1994 in deciding the rate of
compensation. Such exercise was not done by the SLAO. The
impugned Award passed by him shows that he has referred to the rate
as per the ready reckoner but he has referred to the rate given in the
URS 12 of 18
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2018 01:37:35 :::
13 FA 846-12 Judgment.doc
ready reckoner for the year 1992. He, on his own, had considered rise
of 10% for the year 1994 and fixed the price at the rate of Rs.300/-
per sq. meter in respect of the present Plot No.2. The SLAO has
further mentioned that the lands under acquisition fell in Division
No.1, Sub-Division No.2, Column No.4 of the said ready reckoner. As
against this, the Appellant has produced a certified copy of the ready
reckoner for the year 1994. The said ready reckoner was provided to
him vide the letter dated 01/11/2011 by the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Bhiwandi-1. The said copy is a certified copy and is
produced on record at Exh.54.
Major General Kapil Mehra And Ors. vs Union Of India And Anr. on 24 December, 2010
In this regard, Mr. Bubna rightly
relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the
case of Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. Union of India and Another 5
wherein the factors which merit consideration as comparable sale are
mentioned as (i) when the sale is within a reasonable time of the date
of issuance of notification under Section 4(1), (ii) it should be a bona
fide transaction, (iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land
adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) it should possess similar
advantages. Similar view was expressed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the Judgment passed in First Appeal No.751 of 2003 with
First Appeal No.1392 of 2004. In the present case before us, the
5 (2015) 2 SCC 262
URS 11 of 18
::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/02/2018 01:37:35 :::
12 FA 846-12 Judgment.doc
Appellant has failed to establish by cogent evidence that these factors
for the comparable sale were attracted. We are of the opinion that the
Appellant has not brought on record sufficient evidence of comparable
sale. We accept the submission of Mr.Bubna and we are unable to
agree with Mr. Datar that these sale instances could be used for
determining the value of the lands under Reference.
Bhupal Singh & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 1 April, 2015
As far back as in 1982, this Court in Brig. Sahib
Singh Kalha case held, that the permissible deduction could
be up to 53%. This deduction was divided by the Court into
two components. For the "first component" referred to in
the foregoing paragraph, it was held that a deduction of
20% should be made. For the "second component", it was
held that the deduction could range between 20% to 33%.
It is therefore apparent that a deduction of up to 53% was
the norm laid down by the Court as far back as in 1982.
The aforesaid norm remained unchanged for a long
duration of time, even though, keeping in mind the
peculiar facts and circumstances emerging from case to
case, different deductions were applied by this Court to
balance the differential factors between the exemplar land
and the acquired land. Recently however, this Court has
approved a higher component of deduction.