Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.41 seconds)Section 30 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
K D Sundar Raj vs The Union Of India on 27 March, 2008
The Claimant No.2 Smt.
Rajani is entitled for
compensation towards
measuring 1500 sq.feet in site
No.7 out of Sy.No.32 of
Nagasandra village,
Yeshawanthapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
The Claimant No.1 is
entitled for enhanced
compensation for 20667 sq.
feet in site No.7 out of
Sy.No.32 of Nagasandra
village, Yeshawanthapura
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
It is made it clear that
the Claimant No.1 is not
entitled for enhanced
compensation amount for
31
2880 sq. feet which is reserved
for formation of road as per
Ex.P-16 in Sy.No.32 of
Nagasandra village.
The Claimant No.1 and 2
are entitled for all the
statutory benefits as
contemplated under L.A. Act
1894 and also decision of the
Hon'ble Apex court (Sundar
Vs. Union of India) reported in
(2001)7 SCC 211.
The Claimant No.1 and 2
shall execute indemnity bond
to the extent of compensation
amount which are entitled to
receive the compensation
amount so as to redeposit the
claim amount in the event of
any claim made by any other
Claimants with one surety for
the like sum.
Draw An Award
Accordingly.
C/c.II Addl.C.C. & Spl Judge,
Bangalore.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 31 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Smt. Indumati Chitaley vs Government Of India & Anr on 1 November, 1995
6) AIR 1996 Scheduled Caste 531(Smt. Indumati
Chitaley Vs. Government of India and another):
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Assistant Commissioner And L.A.O., ... vs Mohammad Aziz Rahaman And Ors. on 3 November, 1995
The Secretary Ministry Of Defence Govt ... vs Sri R K Sharma Asst General Manager on 18 August, 2011
3) ILR 2004 Karnataka 4240(The Agricultural
produce Market Committee, by its Secretary
and another Vs. the Asst. Commisisoner cum-
Land Acquisition Officer, Chikkodi and others):
1