Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Section 24 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Amar Singh on 28 October, 1959
In addition the appellants will be awarded solarium at the rate of 15 per cent and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of dispossession till payment and proportionate costs.Cross R.F.A. No. 435 of 1969 :(Union of India v. Amar Singh Sadana & others)
(43) As the owners have succeeded in their appeal, this appeal of the Union of India automatically fails and is dismissed,leaving the parties to bear their own costs.R.F.A. No. 130 of 1972 :(Chaman Lal Dhawan & Ors. v. Union of India)
(44) The appellants' land admeasuring 5 bighas 12 biswas was acquired by the Government pursuant to the notification dated 7-3-1962. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded themRs. 4,000 per bigha. On a reference the Additional District Judge raised the compensation to Rs. 20 per square yard. The appellants claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,500 perbigha.
The Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd.,And ... vs The Union Of India And Another(And ... on 6 May, 1959
(2) These appeals were heard in the first instance by YogeshwarDayal, J. Before him the question arose whether a post notification sale can be taken into consideration in determining the market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act).Two rulings were cited before him. One was a decision of the division bench of this Court (Jagjit Singh and Safeer, JJ) in M\s.Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1). The other was a decision of one of us (Avadh Behari.J.)
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Chaman Lal Loona on 30 April, 1957
In addition they will be entitled to solarium at 15 per cent and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of dispossession till payment and proportionate costs.Cross R.F.A. No. 123 of 1972 :(Union of India v. Chaman Lal Dhawan & Ors.)
(48) As the owners have succeeded in their appeal, this cross appeal of the Union of India automatically fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.R.F.A. No. 283 of 1975 :(Dr. K. Satyawati v. Union of India)
(49) The appellant's land admeasuring 5 bighas and 8 biswas in Village Masjid Moth was permanently acquired by the Government pursuant to the notification dated 7/03/1962.In due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award(award No. 1351). He awarded Rs. 4,000 per bigha, placing the appellant's land in Block 'A'. On a reference the learned Additional District Judge awarded her compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 per square yard. In appeal she claims Rs. 60,000per bigha.We may mention here that the appellant purchased this plot in the year 1959 at an auction held by the Ministry of Rehabilitation at about Rs. 7 per sq. yard.
The Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd vs C.I.T., West Bengal, Calcutta on 29 March, 1972
In Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese reference was made to MugneeramBengur and Co. v. State of West Bengal, , where it was said : "THERE is no rule that a post-notification transaction of sale of land similar to the acquired land cannot be looked into. If in considering a post-notification sale.the court finds that after the publication of the notification, the price of the lands in the locality has been affected, in that case it will not be proper for the court to rely on such a transaction of sale, for it will not be any guide for the determination of the market value of the acquired land."
Delhi Simla Catholic Archiliocess vs Union Of India on 24 April, 1979
In Delhi Simla Catholic Archdiocese v. Union of India, 1980 Rajhhani Law Reporter 98, one of us (Avadh Behari, J.) held on the facts that the post-notification sale of 10/04/1957 could be safely relied upon and accepted as a guide to the value of the land. The date of notification under section 4 in that case was 2/01/1957 and 10/04/1957 was the date of thesale. The facts in these cases are very much similar so far as the post-notification sale is concerned. The judge accepted it as a reliable guide. We are in agreement with him.
Udaya Kumar S.S.(Ex.Ct/Gd 04 1578034) vs Union Of India And Others
(38) As the owner S. Gurmukh Singh Chawla (now represented by his legal representative) has succeeded in his appeal.this appeal of the Union of India automatically fails and isdismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.R.F.A. No. 502 of 1969 :(S. Amar Singh and others v. Union of India)
(39) As we have said, Amar Singh's land adjoins the land of S. Gunmukh Singh. His case is identical with the case of Gurmukh Singh. The appellants' land admeasuring 5 bighas5 biswas was acquired by the Government pursuant to the notification dated 7-3-1962 under section 4 of the Act. By a common judgment dated 6/05/1969 the learned Additional District Judge decided his appeal as well as the appeal of Gurmukh Singh Chawla. He awarded to these appellants compensation at the rate of Rs. 28.50, as he did to GurmukhSingh Chawla.
1