Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.50 seconds)
Smt. Raj Kumari W/O Sh. Kalyan Singh vs Union Of India on 28 July, 2008 cites

Raj Bala vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 July, 2003

Since the aforesaid sale deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/5 pertains to the years 2006 & 2007 respectively which have been executed after the land in question acquired on 18.07.2003, 31 therefore, the aforesaid sale deeds Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/5 which are of subsequent years have not been considered for fixing the fair market value as on 18.07.2003 in Raj Bal case, therefore, the same are also not applicable to the land in question which is similarly situated in the present reference.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 77 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Sh. Mahender Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 May, 2006

28 Since, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid cases i.e. Mahender Singh & Gajraj Singh (Supra) has given compounded increase @ 11.5% annually on the compensation awarded, therefore, my decision is also supported with the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also the award/ judgment dt. 14.07.2008 passed by this reference in LAC No.226/1/07 entitled Raj Bal Vs UOI & Anr. Thus, I hold that the petitioner herein is entitled to compounded increase @ 11.5% annually on the compensation amount of Rs.15.70 lacs per acre fixed by this reference court of the land in question as per her full share from the date of financial year i.e. 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003 which roughly comes to the total enhanced compensation of Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre (total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre ­ Rs.5,05,000/­ per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/­ per acre enhanced) as on 18.07.2003. The petitioner has not led any evidence 37 for other claims as averred in the reference petition, therefore, she is not entitled for the same. These issues are answered accordingly. RELIEF 29 In view of my findings on the above issues, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for category A land as per her full share at Rs.15.70 lacs per acre and the petitioner is also entitled to compounded increase @ 11.5% annually from the date of financial year i.e. 09.08.2001 till the date of acquisition of the land i.e. 18.07.2003. Therefore, I fix the market value at Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre as on 18.07.2003 (i.e. total amount fixed at Rs.19,20,568/­ per acre ­ Rs.5,05,000/­ per acre assessed by the LAC = Rs.14,15,568/­ per acre enhanced) of the land bearing khasra nos.114/18 (4­16), 19 (4­
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 30 - S Kumar - Full Document

Rameshwar Solanki vs Union Of India on 3 February, 1995

Even in the cases of A. Mangla Gauri and Rameshwar Solanki (Supra) relied upon by the claimants, 1/3 deduction was held to be just and fair. Ex.P­3 in our opinion could not have been ignored by the Ld. Reference Court. Golden Rule of Averages could have been safely applied by the Reference Court for determining the fair market value of the land. Ex.R­ 4 indicates the value of the agricultural land in village Mundaka @ Rs.1 lakh per bigha. This sale deed was executed on 14.03.1994 i.e. nearly 6 months subsequent to the date of notification dt. 15.10.1993 issued under section 4 of the Act while Ex.P­3 was executed on 27.02.1990 whereby the land in village Mundaka was sold for Rs.1,25,000/­ per bigha. Giving a reasonable increase on the value reflected in Ex.P­3 for the intervening period of 3 years, the amount would come to nearly Rs.1,70,000/­ per bigha while reducing the amount of R­4 at the same rate for the intervening period of 6 months, the amount would come to Rs.94,000/­ per bigha and average of both of them would give market value of Rs.1,32,000/­ per bigha.''
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 329 - A K Srivastava - Full Document

Kehar Singh And Ors. vs Punjab State Through Land Acquisition ... on 11 April, 1991

(b) The claimants would be entitled to increase in the awarded amount of comepnsation from 1st April, 1996 to 15th November, 1996 (the date of notification under section 4 under the Act) @ 20 11.5% compounded annually on the compensation awarded by the Reference Court/ Collector that would roughly give them total enhanced compensation of Rs.1,99,904.68 p. Per bigha.....'' In the reported judgment in LPA No.279 of 1984 as Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs Punjab State through Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab, PWDB & R, Jullundur & Ors 148 the Punjab Law Reporter (Vol. CI­ 1992­1), it was held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that :
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Joginder Singh Saini Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 16 February, 1990

''The courts of law would generally be disinclined to categorise the land and would be inclined to evaluate the entire land at a flat rate whenever it has got the potentialities for being used for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. The factum of the land being situated in a compact block is another consideration which must weigh with the court to do away with the belting system. The location of the land in urban area is another factor leading towards the grant of flat rate when the entire land is acquired by one notification. Even suburban properties near or around the Municipal Town can have the same potentilaities until and unless evidence to the contrary is produced.'' Generally, orchard starts to develop at least 10 to 12 years and no evidence has been filed by the respondents that the land under acquisition are low laying. The counsel for the petitioner - herein on the aspect of orchard over the acquired land has also relied upon the judgment reported as Joginder Singh Saini Vs State of Haryana & Anr AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 171.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 40 - B C Ray - Full Document
1   2 3 Next