Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.56 seconds)Section 47 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 53 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Prag Narain vs The Collector Of Agra on 29 February, 1932
In Prag Narain v. Collector of Agra(2), the Judicial Com-
mittee observed that "it is well settled that this Board
will not review the decree of an Indian Appellate Court
merely upon questions of value", and reiterated the
observations made in Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State for
India(2) that the Board will not interfere with judgments of
the Courts in India as to matters involving valuation of
property and similar questions where knowledge of the
circumstances and of the district may have an important
bearing on the conclusion reached, unless there is something
to show, not merely that on the balance of evidence -it
would be possible to reach a different conclusion, but that
the judgment cannot be supported as it stands, either by
reason of a wrong application of principle or because some
important point in the evidence has been overlooked or
misapplied.
Narsingh Das vs Secretary Of State For India on 15 December, 1924
In Prag Narain v. Collector of Agra(2), the Judicial Com-
mittee observed that "it is well settled that this Board
will not review the decree of an Indian Appellate Court
merely upon questions of value", and reiterated the
observations made in Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State for
India(2) that the Board will not interfere with judgments of
the Courts in India as to matters involving valuation of
property and similar questions where knowledge of the
circumstances and of the district may have an important
bearing on the conclusion reached, unless there is something
to show, not merely that on the balance of evidence -it
would be possible to reach a different conclusion, but that
the judgment cannot be supported as it stands, either by
reason of a wrong application of principle or because some
important point in the evidence has been overlooked or
misapplied.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958
In The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore
v. T. Adinarayan Setty (1). S. K. Das, J., speaking for the
Court observed
"We are content to proceed in this case on the
footing that we should not interfere unless
there is something to show, not merely that on
the balance of evidence it is possible to
reach a different conclusion, but that the
judgment cannot be supported by reason of a
wrong application of principle or because some
important point affecting valuation has been
overlooked or misapplied."