Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.61 seconds)
K.V.Sarada vs The Special Tahasildar on 31 July, 2006 cites

Union Of India And Anr vs Pradeep Kumari And Ors on 10 March, 1995

12. It is further contended by the counsel, again relying on the decision in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari (AIR 1995 SC 2259) that always the L.A.A. No.1723 of 2007 -: 72 :- first award alone need not be taken as the basis. The award relied on in an application under S. 28(A) need not always be the first award passed by the Court in a case relating to a particular acquisition covered by a notification. It can even be a subsequent award wherein the respective claimants had adduced real evidence and obtained real compensation eligible for the land. In such circumstances, it is possible for any person who has entitlement to make a claim for re-determination under S. 28(A)(1) to point out that subsequent award for enhanced compensation. Such claim cannot be defeated by the Land Acquisition Officer contending that the basis for re-determination shall only be the first award and not subsequent award. That is really possible. But, when what is relied on in the claim for re-determination is the first award, any further enhanced amount granted in a subsequent award will not enable him to claim the amount awarded in that subsequent award. In such circumstances, it will only be a piece of evidence to substantiate his claim mentioned in the application, especially when no amendment of the application was sought for based on any subsequent award. The awards newly produced were dated 3.1.89 and 8.4.92. It was beyond the period of limitation provided for. Therefore, it was impossible to claim the amount awarded in award in L.A.R. No. 161/85 as well as the judgment in L.A.A. No. 289/88. Thus, on any count, the amount claimed in the application for re-determination shall be the final limit beyond which the Collector cannot award any additional value. The Collector has awarded the land value equal to the rate awarded in L.A.R. No. 22/83, as claimed by the appellant. In such circumstances, the reference court could not have awarded any more amount than what had been claimed by the claimant in his application dated 3.7.87.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 205 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next