Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.28 seconds)Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975
39. The principle of the potentiality of the land was settled way-
back by the Apex Court in 'Dollar Company, Madras Vs. Collector of
Madras' 1975 (2) SCC 730, wherein it was held that the market value
was to be judged on the principle of what a willing purchaser would pay a
willing vendor and the best evidence of the value of property is the sale
of the property of a recent date. Proximity to the highways and reference
to piece of land sold would serve as a guide for fixing the value of the
acquired land, which were factors which were necessary to be kept in
mind.
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 21 July, 1988
40. The said principle was further expounded in 'Chimanlal
24 of 32
::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2020 01:48:08 :::
RFA No.1253 of 2014 & other connected appeals -25-
Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona' 1988 (3)
SCC 751, whereas the plus and minus factors which had to be kept in
mind by the Court were delineated and the genuineness of the sale deeds
and avoidance of rigged up instances had to be avoided. The plus factors
included proximity to a road, frontage on a road, nearness to the
developed area with regular shape and level land, which in the present
case are being kept in mind, as the State itself is acquiring the land for the
purpose of residential and commercial usage.
P. Ram Reddy vs Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad ... on 19 April, 1993
In 'P.Ram Reddy & others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer,
Hydrabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad', 1995 (2) SCC
305, the building potentiality of the acquired land was a relevant factor
which had to be kept in mind, which was not only on the date with
reference under Section 4, but also with reference to the possibility of
become available in the immediate or near future for better use. The
situation of the acquired land in proximity to the city and the suitability
for using it for residential, commercial and for industrial use and the
existence of highways, public roads and benefits of advantages of
educational institutions, health care centres and the surrounding areas
which would come available were necessary factors which have to be
kept in mind. The hypothetical lay-out of the building plan of the
acquired land similar to the building plan actually made on the other
similar lands had to be kept in mind and which all factors are available in
the present set of appeals. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as
under:
C.R. Nagaraja Shetty vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer ... on 20 March, 2006
50. The advantages and the potentialities of the land have
already been discussed in detail above. The argument as such of the State
that uniform compensation as such should not have been granted is
without any basis. Admittedly, no such appeals have been filed by the
State and enhanced compensation stands paid, as the State was satisfied
with the judgment of the Reference Court. The Apex Court in 'C.R.
Nagaraja Shetty Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate
Officer', 2009 (11) SCC 80 has held that in the absence of the State
appeals as such and challenge having not been raised by the State the
amount could not have set aside, as awarded by the Reference Court and
the High Court could have only dismissed the appeals of the landowners.
Hsiidc Limited vs Pran Sukh Gupta And Others on 7 September, 2011
54. The State shall also comply with the directions laid down by the Apex Court in 'HSIIDC Vs. Pran Sukh' (2010) 11 SCC 175, to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman.