Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (0.44 seconds)

Sudha Kunwarbai vs Land Acquisition Officer The State Of ... on 26 October, 2023

Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these appeals and since they arise out of the same proceedings from different judgments passed by IVth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), District Dhar but are result of a common notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act') and thus based upon similar facts, documents and oral evidence of land acquisition for acquiring land for public purposes for rehabilitation of displaced persons of the villages, which came under submergence due to increase of height of Sardar Sarover Dam of Tehsil Dharampur in District Dhar, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 20-06-2025 17:59:52 17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086 judgment. For sake of convenience, facts are taken from First Appeal No. 131 of 2010 (Radheshyam versus Land Acquisition Officer State of Madhya Pradesh) and First Appeal No. 476 of 2010 (State of Madhya Pradesh versus Radheshyam).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S Abhyankar - Full Document

Mohammed Aijaz vs Principal Secretary State Of M.P. And 5 ... on 21 January, 2016

Serial No. First Appeal Name of the Parties' 1 696/2010 Bahadur vs State of M.P & Anr. 2 697/2010 Bhuresingh vs State of M.P. & Anr.. 3 698/2010 Kishan vs State of M.P & Anr. 4 699/2010 Sarvan vs State of M.P & Anr. 5 700/2010 Kalyansingh vs State of M.P & Ors 6 701/2010 Mangibai vs State of M.P &Ors. 7 702/2010 Dilip vs State of M.P & Ors. 8 703/2010 Dogar vs State of M.P & Ors. 9 704/2010 Sukhdev & Anr. vs State of M.P & Ors. 10 705/2010 (Decd.)HarichandraThr. Lrs.(Decd.) Ramesh Thr.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 3005 - P K Jaiswal - Full Document

A.P. Housing Board vs K. Manohar Reddy & Ors on 30 September, 2010

In the available facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the various judgments of the Apex Court from time to time in respect of deduction to be made in respect of agricultural lands which were acquired for and are having potential for construction of a housing colony, particularly in the case of Kasturi (Supra) and K.J. Manohar Reddy (Supra), in my opinion, a deduction of 35% from the market value of the acquired lands would be appropriate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 98 - M Sharma - Full Document

Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 June, 2022

Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - S Abhyankar - Full Document

Suresh H. Rajput Etc vs Bhartiben Pravinbhai Soni & Ors on 28 November, 1995

Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 23 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Sri Suresh Kumar Goyal vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 11 January, 2019

Ors. Maharaj 14 126/2010 Suresh vs State of M.P & Ors. 15 127/2010 Jogendersingh vs State of M.P & Ors. 16 128/2010 Ganesh ThroughSavitribai&Anr.vsState of M.P & Ors. 17 129/2010 Narendra vs State of M.P & Ors. State of M.P & Ors. 18 130/2010 Mangilal vs State of M.P & Ors. 19 131/2010 Radheshyam vs State of M.P & Ors. 20 132/2010 Misarbai & Ors. Vs State of M.P & Ors. Signature Not Verified Signed by: JYOTI CHOURASIA Signing time: 20-06-2025 17:59:52 18 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11086
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 435 - U U Lalit - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next