Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.58 seconds)

Shri Sunder Lal & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 September, 1998

The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the photocopy of the judgment dt. 29.08.2006 passed by this reference court in LAC No.283/1/06 titled Prabhu & Ors. Vs UOI which is Mark­A and photocopy of the judgment dt. 28.04.2007 passed by this reference court in LAC No.366/1/06 titled Sunder & Ors. Vs UOI which is Mark­B. In Mark­A & B, the land situate at village Masoodpur, Delhi was acquired vide the same notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act as in the present reference. This reference court, in Mark­A & B, fixed the market value as on the date of notification dt. 23.01.1965 u/sec. 4 of the LA Act at Rs.18,000/­ per bigha and Rs.20,000/­ per bigha respectively besides the statutory benefits. The petitioners herein have claimed the compensation @ Rs.15/­ per sq. yard as on 23.01.1965, therefore, my decision is again supported with the aforesaid judgments and the market value of the land in question is fixed @ Rs.15/­ per sq. yard (Rs.15,000/­ per bigha) as on 23.01.1965. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for enhancement in compensation of the land in question according to their shares. The petitioners have not led any evidence in 8 respect of the compensation for trees and structure, therefore, they are not entitled for the said relief.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Prabhu Dayal And Others vs Union Of India on 20 April, 1993

The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the photocopy of the judgment dt. 29.08.2006 passed by this reference court in LAC No.283/1/06 titled Prabhu & Ors. Vs UOI which is Mark­A and photocopy of the judgment dt. 28.04.2007 passed by this reference court in LAC No.366/1/06 titled Sunder & Ors. Vs UOI which is Mark­B. In Mark­A & B, the land situate at village Masoodpur, Delhi was acquired vide the same notification u/sec. 4 of the LA Act as in the present reference. This reference court, in Mark­A & B, fixed the market value as on the date of notification dt. 23.01.1965 u/sec. 4 of the LA Act at Rs.18,000/­ per bigha and Rs.20,000/­ per bigha respectively besides the statutory benefits. The petitioners herein have claimed the compensation @ Rs.15/­ per sq. yard as on 23.01.1965, therefore, my decision is again supported with the aforesaid judgments and the market value of the land in question is fixed @ Rs.15/­ per sq. yard (Rs.15,000/­ per bigha) as on 23.01.1965. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for enhancement in compensation of the land in question according to their shares. The petitioners have not led any evidence in 8 respect of the compensation for trees and structure, therefore, they are not entitled for the said relief.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 110 - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs Rajiv Yadav, Ias And Others, Anil Kumar, ... on 21 July, 1994

''In view of what we have discussed hereinabove, we hold that the principle laid down in the case of Union of India Vs Rajiv Gupta (Supra) for payment of interest during the period the proceedings remained stayed at the instance of the claimant with the statement that he shall not claim interest during the period of stay, interest is required to be granted is not in consonance with law. This court is of the opinion that when a claimant requested the Court to stay the proceedings with the statement that the party shall not claim any interest during the period of stay, the party cannot claim any interest for such period.'' 12 In the present reference, it reveals from the order dt. 06.12.1982 passed by the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi that no specific statement was made by any of the petitioners that the petitioners shall not claim any interest during the period of stay. The facts and circumstances of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thus, in view of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, I hold that petitioners are also entitled to the interest for the stay period on the enhanced compensation. These issues are answered accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 83 - Full Document

Shyam Sunder Agarwal & Co vs Union Of India on 9 January, 1996

RELIEF 10 13 In view of my findings on the above issues, the market value of the land in question is fixed at Rs.15/­ per sq. yard (Rs.15,000/­ per bigha) and the petitioners are entitled to enhancement in compensation as per their shares mentioned in the statement U/s 19 of the LA Act. Besides it, the petitioners shall also be entitled to get solatium U/s 23 (2) of the LA Act @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest U/s 28 of the LA Act @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of dispossession and @ 15% per annum on the difference between the enhanced compensation awarded by this court and the compensation awarded by the LAC for the subsequent period till the payment. Since, there is difference of more than three years between the notification U/sec. 4 dated 23.01.1965 and declaration U/sec. 6 of the Act dated 26.12.1968, the petitioners are further entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a, on the market value w.e.f 23.01.1968 in terms of Section 4 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1967 provided there is no overlapping in the payment of interest U/sec. 4(3) and Section 28 of the Act. The petitioners are further entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Sunder Vs UOI reported in DLT 2001 (SC) 569. This reference is answered accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1784 - Full Document
1   2 Next