Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.36 seconds)
State Of Orissa vs Himadri Sahu And Two Ors. on 1 May, 2007 cites

The Executive Director vs Sarat Chandra Bisoi & Anr on 11 May, 2000

In the case of Executive Director v. Sarat Chandra Bisoi (supra) the lands in question no doubt belong to the State of Orissa and the same area, but in that case Guru Charan Singh's case was not cited and the ratio laid down in that case was not discussed. Moreover in that case the multiplier was determined taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of that case and no ratio was laid down. It is to be noted that the decision of the earlier Bench is binding unless explained by the later Bench in which case the later decision is binding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 34 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

State Of Punjab (Now Haryana) And, Ors vs Amar Singh And Another on 21 January, 1974

In the case of State of Haryana v. Qurucharan Singh (supra), a two-Judge Bench of the apex Court observed that under no circumstances, the multiplier should be more than 8 years for lands having trees or plantation and 12 years for agricultural lands, in the case of Airport Authority of India v. Satya Gopal Roy and Ors. (supra), a three-Judge Bench approved the ratio laid down in Gurucharan Singh's case (supra), thereby ruling that 12 multiplier is reasonable for agricultural lands. Learned counsels for the respondents submitted that the ratio of the above noted cases would not apply to the present case as the lands in those cases belong to other States and all the factors guiding determination of compensation of lands were not taken into consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 262 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Dollar Company, Madras vs Collector Of Madras on 1 May, 1975

7. As has been said in the case of The Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of Madras , the value of the land acquired shortly before notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is the best evidence to determine market value. In absence of such material, contemporaneous transaction of lands having similar advantages would give good guidance for determination of market value. Opinion of experts on valuation of and can be adopted as a method for determination of market value. In absence of any of these methods, market value can be determined by capitalizing number of years, purchase of net annual yield. What would be the multiple on basis of which capitalization method would be adopted would vary from case to case and time to time. In the present appeals the parties have no dispute about the correctness of adopting method of capitalization and also the annual net income assessed by the referral Court. The only dispute relates to the number of years used as suitable multiplier. The appellants canvass that 12 multiplier would be proper whereas the claimants-respondents propagate that 16 multiplier would be reasonable and fair.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 103 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next