Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.23 seconds)Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Lal Chand vs Union Of India & Anr on 12 August, 2009
Taking into consideration all aspects such as extent of
development which had already taken place in the surrounding areas, the
extent of the land acquired and the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court
in Lal Chand (supra) and Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf (supra), in my view,
the deduction for development to the extent of 15% would be justified in the
facts of the present case to arrive at the market value of the acquired land.
Thus, applying the deduction of 15% on the rate of Rs.10,868/- per sq. mtr.,
the market value of the land in question would arrive at Rs.9,237.80/- per
square metre.
Kapil Mehra & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 October, 2014
11. The Supreme Court in Kapil Mehra & Ors. Vs. Union of India &
Anr., (2015) 2 SCC 262, has observed as under:
Kar. Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board vs K.S. Gangadharappa & Anr on 15 April, 2009
In relation to comparable sale transactions, the Supreme Court, in
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Ors. v. K.S.
Gangadharappa & Anr., (2009) 11 SCC 164, has, inter alia, observed as
follows:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958
It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a
consideration as a comparable case (See Special Land
Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty (AIR 1959 SC 429)
Page 12 These aspects have been highlighted in Ravinder
Narain v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 481."
Ravinder Narain And Anr vs Union Of India on 28 February, 2003
It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a
consideration as a comparable case (See Special Land
Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty (AIR 1959 SC 429)
Page 12 These aspects have been highlighted in Ravinder
Narain v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 481."
Raj Kumar & Ors vs Haryana State & Ors on 27 August, 2007
to recover dues, there is an element of
distress, a cloud regarding title, and a chance of litigation,
which have the effect of dampening the enthusiasm of bidders
and making them cautious, thereby depressing the price. There
is therefore every likelihood of auction price being either
higher or lower than the real market price, depending upon
the nature of sale. As a result, courts are wary of relying upon
LA.App. No. 62/2013 Page 10 of 22
auction sale transactions when other regular traditional sale
transactions are available while determining the market value
of the acquired land. This Court in Raj Kumar v. Haryana
State (2007) 7 SCC 609 observed that the element of
competition in auction-sales makes them unsafe guides for
determining the market value."
Jaw Ajee Nagnatham vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 January, 1994
After referring to several other decisions,
including the decision in Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional
LA.App. No. 62/2013 Page 12 of 22
Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595, and U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Kalra Properties (P)
Ltd., (1996) 3 SCC 124, the Supreme Court held that there is no statutory
basis to consider such circle rates as sacrosanct, as the purpose of the said
rates is only to fix the rate at which the minimum stamp duty would be
payable on transactions pertaining to the land covered by the circle. Such
circulars merely fix the guideline value for the purposes of determining the
true market value of the property disclosed in instruments requiring payment
of stamp duty. The guideline value is only prima-facie rate prevailing in the
area, and it is open to the registering authority as well as the person seeking
registration to prove the actual market value of the property. The authorities
cannot regard the guideline value as the last word on the subject of market
value. Thus, the approach of the learned ADJ in pegging the market value
of the acquired land on the basis of the aforesaid circular does not appear to
be correct. The rate notified in the said circular could, at best, have been
used as a guideline and nothing more.
The U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknowthrough Its ... vs M/S. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd.,Lucknow ... on 17 January, 1996
After referring to several other decisions,
including the decision in Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional
LA.App. No. 62/2013 Page 12 of 22
Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595, and U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Kalra Properties (P)
Ltd., (1996) 3 SCC 124, the Supreme Court held that there is no statutory
basis to consider such circle rates as sacrosanct, as the purpose of the said
rates is only to fix the rate at which the minimum stamp duty would be
payable on transactions pertaining to the land covered by the circle. Such
circulars merely fix the guideline value for the purposes of determining the
true market value of the property disclosed in instruments requiring payment
of stamp duty. The guideline value is only prima-facie rate prevailing in the
area, and it is open to the registering authority as well as the person seeking
registration to prove the actual market value of the property. The authorities
cannot regard the guideline value as the last word on the subject of market
value. Thus, the approach of the learned ADJ in pegging the market value
of the acquired land on the basis of the aforesaid circular does not appear to
be correct. The rate notified in the said circular could, at best, have been
used as a guideline and nothing more.