Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 21 July, 1988
The same principle was reiterated in (1982) 1 SCC 419 [Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust]; (1988) 3 SCC 751 [Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer] and (1996) 2 SCC 62 [K.S.Shivadevamma v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer].
Lucknow Development Authority vs Krishna Gopal Lahoti And Ors on 2 November, 2007
20. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices [Vide AIR 2008 SC 399 (Lucknow Development Authority v. Krishna Gopal Lahori and others].
Atma Singh (Died) Through Lrs. & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 7 December, 2007
"14. The reasons given for the principle that price fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land, according to cases referred to above, are that substantial area is used for development of sites like laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and other civic amenities. Expenses are also incurred in providing these basic amenities. That apart it takes considerable period in carving out the roads making sewers and drains and waiting for the purchasers. Meanwhile the invested money is blocked up and the return on the investment flows after a considerable period of time. In order to make up for the area of land which is used in providing civic amenities and the waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur gets locked up a deduction from 20% onward, depending upon the facts of each case, is made."
Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha And Ors. vs Amritsar Improvement Trust And Ors. on 1 October, 1981
The same principle was reiterated in (1982) 1 SCC 419 [Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust]; (1988) 3 SCC 751 [Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer] and (1996) 2 SCC 62 [K.S.Shivadevamma v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer].
Brij Lal (Dead) By Lrs. And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 December, 2007
11. Considering the factor whether the land has got potential value, in (2008) 3 MLJ 806 (SC) [Atma Singh (died) through LRs and others v. State of Haryana and another], the Supreme Court held as under:-