Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.67 seconds)Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Major Pakhar Singh Atwal & Ors vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 24 January, 1995
17. Evidentiary value of an award given by the Collector has been considered in depth in Major Pakhar Singh Atwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 401. In this case it has been held that though the award may be a material evidence to be looked into, but the sale transactions referred to therein cannot be relied upon inplicitly, if the party seeding enhancement resists the claim by adducing evidence independently before the court or the tribunal. In this very case it was held that if the claimants intend to seek higher compensation to the acquired land, the burden is on them to establish by proof that the compensation awarded by the SLAO is inadequate and they are entitled to higher compensation.
Special Land Acquisition Officer And ... vs Sidappa Omanna Tumari And Ors. Etc on 27 October, 1994
18. At this stage the judgment in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. v. Sri Siddappa Omanna Tumari and Ors. , heavily relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, may be noticed. A vast piece of land measuring 300 acres was acquired by the State Government. The State Government negotiated with the owners of the land and a price was arrived at with the owners in respect of 240 acres of land. The SLAO determined the market price accordingly in respect of the entire land. Since the owners of the remaining 60 acres of land did not agree with the State Government in the matter of amount of compensation to be received for their land, the reference was made and the reference court enhanced the compensation amount which was further enhanced court enhanced the compensation amount which was further enhanced by the High Court. The argument on behalf of the SLAO was that the agreement entered into by other owners with respect to 240 acres of land was a relevant evidence to show what was the market value on the relevant date. In this fact situation, the Apex Court was of the view that agreed price for 240 acres is a relevant guideline to fix the price of the remaining land accordingly. The observation made by the Apex Court should be understood in the fact situation as they existed there. It cannot be read out of context. In the case on hand there is no evidence to what is the price of a part of the acquired land, admittedly. The said judgment is, therefore, distinguishable and is not to the facts of the present case.
Panna Lal Ghosh & Ors vs Land Acquisition Collector & Ors on 12 December, 2003
26. Panna Lal Ghosh and Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. AIR 2004 S.C. 1179 is an authority for the proposition that in determining the price of a piece of land on comparable method basis, an award passed in another acquisition proceedings which relates to 3 feet higher than the land acquired in question, the award passed for the said land cannot be relied upon. Relevant paras 6 and 7 are reproduced below:
Kanwar Singh And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India on 30 October, 1998
In Kanwar Singh and Ors. v. Union of India it has been held that contiguity of village could not be by itself be sufficient to draw an inference of similarity in character of the lands in awarding the compensation. Topography, potentiality and advantages attached to and available to the comparable land should be taken into consideration.
Union Of India vs Pramod Gupta (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 7 September, 2005
In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta AIR 2005 3708 it has been held that judgment and awards of the same village or of neighbouring village have only a evidentiary value. The areas of the land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages therein amongst others would be relevant factors for determining the actual market value of the property. Relevant para-24 is reproduced below:-
The Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs Nookala Rajamallu And Ors. on 21 November, 2003
In Land Acquisition Officer Kammarapally Village v. Nookala Rajamallu and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 1031 and V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer AIR 2004 SC 1185 it has been held that while fixing the value of land in question deduction for development etc. was to be made from value indicated in sale deed relied upon.