Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)
Karan Singh & Others vs Union Of India on 24 September, 1997 cites

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Major Jitendra Kumar And Ors. on 19 January, 1982

Before we part with the first argument of learned counsel for the appellants, we would like to notice the two decisions in the cases of State of U.P. vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and others, AIR 1982 SC 876 and in Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (deceased by LRs) and others vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 2051, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. In these cases there is no controversy as to whether the burden to establish that there was no rise in price of land after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, was on the claimant or on the State, and as such, these decision are of no assistance for deciding the controversy at hand. For these reasons we are of the opinion that the High Court did not commit any error in rejecting Ext. A-8, Ext. A-9, Ext. A-10, Ext. A-12 and Ext. A-13 while arriving at the market value of the acquired land.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 106 - Full Document

Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased) ... vs State Of Gujarat on 8 August, 1989

Before we part with the first argument of learned counsel for the appellants, we would like to notice the two decisions in the cases of State of U.P. vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and others, AIR 1982 SC 876 and in Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (deceased by LRs) and others vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 2051, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. In these cases there is no controversy as to whether the burden to establish that there was no rise in price of land after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, was on the claimant or on the State, and as such, these decision are of no assistance for deciding the controversy at hand. For these reasons we are of the opinion that the High Court did not commit any error in rejecting Ext. A-8, Ext. A-9, Ext. A-10, Ext. A-12 and Ext. A-13 while arriving at the market value of the acquired land.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 51 - M H Kania - Full Document

Baldev Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab Through Collector on 7 August, 1996

Learned counsel for the appellants lastly relied upon three decisions of this Court in support of his arguments. Baldev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 1996 (10) SCC 37, State of Madras vs. A.M. Nanjan and another, 1976(1) SCC 973, and Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah etc. 1977(1) SCR 178. We have perused the judgments and in none of the decisions the controversy related to previous judgment or subsequent judgment and as such, these decisions are not helpful to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 66 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

State Of Madras vs A. M. Nanjan And Anr on 9 February, 1976

Learned counsel for the appellants lastly relied upon three decisions of this Court in support of his arguments. Baldev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 1996 (10) SCC 37, State of Madras vs. A.M. Nanjan and another, 1976(1) SCC 973, and Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah etc. 1977(1) SCR 178. We have perused the judgments and in none of the decisions the controversy related to previous judgment or subsequent judgment and as such, these decisions are not helpful to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 41 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Land Acquisition Officer, City ... vs H. Narayanaiah Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1976

Learned counsel for the appellants lastly relied upon three decisions of this Court in support of his arguments. Baldev Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, 1996 (10) SCC 37, State of Madras vs. A.M. Nanjan and another, 1976(1) SCC 973, and Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah etc. 1977(1) SCR 178. We have perused the judgments and in none of the decisions the controversy related to previous judgment or subsequent judgment and as such, these decisions are not helpful to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 92 - M H Beg - Full Document
1   2 Next