Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)
Project Director National Highways ... vs Alfa Remidis Ltd, Nagpur on 12 May, 2026 cites

National Highways Authority Of India vs P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah on 11 July, 2022

8. Before we address the issue on merits, we may note that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015, was notified by the Government of India, with effect from 01.09.2015, clarifying that the provisions of the 2013 LA Act relating to determination 4 of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule thereto. The NH Act figures at Serial No. 6 in the Fourth Schedule to the 2013 LA Act. In effect, there can be no doubt as to the applicability of the provisions of the 2013 LA Act for determination of the compensation payable under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act. This position was made amply clear by this Court in National Highways Authority of India vs. P. Nagaraju alias Cheluvaiah and another 4, wherein it was held that all aspects contained in Sections 26 to 28 of the 2013 LA Act for determination of compensation would be applicable during the exercise of fixing the quantum of compensation payable under the NH Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 45 - A S Bopanna - Full Document

Madhya Pradesh Road Development ... vs Vincent Daniel on 15 May, 2023

12. Though the High Court laboured over various decisions of this Court, the position obtaining under the statutory provision and the legal principles laid down in the above referred judgments were neither noted nor given effect to. Section 34(2A) of the Arbitration Act provides for setting aside an arbitral award if it is found to be vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of it. Though the proviso thereto stipulates that an arbitral award should not be set aside merely on the ground of erroneous application of law or by reappreciation of evidence, we are of the opinion that the cloak of protection afforded by the proviso cannot be extended to the present arbitral award. The Arbitrator completely ignored the directives of Section 26(1)(b) of the 2013 LA Act and the Explanations thereunder, by adopting a sale exemplar of a totally dissimilar type of land and, at that, a single sale exemplar, which was contrary to the statutory mandate. Respondent No. 1 had itself cited the Government rate available in the Ready Reckoner, i.e., ₹2,020/- per square meter, being the rate applicable for lands on the highway in Zone 4. Mauza Pardi (Rithi) finds mention 5 (2025) 7 SCC 798 8 amongst the villages named in Zone 4. That being so, the statutory provision that should have been applied for determination of the market value of respondent No.1’s land was Section 26(1)(a) of the 2013 LA Act.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1