Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.29 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The State Of Maharashtra, The Special ... vs Yashwant Kahnu Shirsath [Alongwith ... on 19 July, 2007
In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 7th September, 2007, in the case of The State of Maharashtra v. Pandurang J. Patil and Ors. First Appeal No. 382 of 1995 and Ors.
Section 53 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran,(Ujjain ... vs Tarachand & Anr. Etc on 12 July, 1996
21. The above principle was also in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tarachand's case (supra) where it was held that the Court was precluded from awarding compensation beyond the amount claimed by the party and that awarding in excess thereof would be illegal. In both these judgments the contentions raised by the claimants were duly examined by the Court and were found to be inconsequential.
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 21 July, 1988
18. The claimants have strenuously argued that the pre- amendment position of Section 25 of the Act would not be applicable to the claims. The un-amended provisions of Section 25 were in no way rigid and even the Page 2210 Court had taken a view that the Government should award same compensation to the claimants for acquisition of the land similarly situated and in relation to the same notification. In view of the fact that the bar contained in the unamended Section 25(2) has already been deleted by the amending provisions, the recourse to unamended provisions would not be permissible. While relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Anr. , it was stated that the proceedings before the Reference Court have to be considered as original proceedings and the Court can come to an independent conclusion for determining the market value.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer ... vs Kallangouda And Others on 7 November, 1992
Reliance has also been placed in the cases of Raghbir Singh (deceased by Lrs) and Ors. v. Union of India , The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (NHW) Dharwad v. Kallangouda (FB) and Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh to buttress the contention that the market value can only be one and it is determined by the Collector in the first instance and re-determined by the Reference Court. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, there is now no limitation on the power of the Court to award adequate compensation and the State was bound to pay similar compensation to all the claimants.
Bhag Singh & Ors vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh, Through ... on 14 August, 1985
Reliance has also been placed in the cases of Raghbir Singh (deceased by Lrs) and Ors. v. Union of India , The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (NHW) Dharwad v. Kallangouda (FB) and Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh to buttress the contention that the market value can only be one and it is determined by the Collector in the first instance and re-determined by the Reference Court. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, there is now no limitation on the power of the Court to award adequate compensation and the State was bound to pay similar compensation to all the claimants.