Administrator General Of West Bengal vs Collector, Varanasi on 16 February, 1988
(See Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi [(1988)
2 SCC 150] .) In Brig.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.31 seconds)
Basant Lal (Deceased) Through His Lrs ... vs Land Acquisition Collector And Another on 14 May, 2024
cites
Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Lal Chand vs Union Of India & Anr on 12 August, 2009
23. Noticeably, learned Reference Court has held the
applicability of deduction charges @ 65% by placing reliance
upon Lal Chand (supra), still what has been missed out is the
availability of two relevant parameters on record, one being the
flatness of acquired land and second the contiguity of National
Highway to the acquired land.
Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha And Ors. vs Amritsar Improvement Trust And Ors. on 1 October, 1981
Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar
Improvement Trust [(1982) 1 SCC 419] the deduction for such
development was taken as 53%.
K. Vasundara Devi vs Revenue Divisional Officer ... on 27 July, 1995
In Vasundara Devi
case [(1995) 5 SCC 426] 63% deduction was upheld. In view of
the fact that development of land would have taken years, the
High Court has deducted another 12%. Obviously, the High
Court kept in view the fact that the lands under Ex. P-10 were
situated at far-flung places from the lands under acquisition
and since the land takes long time for development it has given
additional deduction of 12%, i.e. 53 + 12% = 65% in
determination of the compensation. On the basis of the
rationale referred to above, the principle adopted by the High
Court cannot be said to be illegal. Thus considered, we hold that
there is no justification for interference in the finding recorded
by the High Court or to further increase the compensation.
The Coinage Act, 2011
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Spl. Tehsildar Land Acqn. ... vs Smt. A. Mangala Gowri on 9 August, 1991
3. Shri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant placing reliance on Vijay Kumar Moti
Lal v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 719]
and Special Tehsildar Land Acquisition v. A. Mangala
Gowri [(1991) 4 SCC 218] , contended that this Court had
upheld deduction of uniform rate of 1/3rd required for
developmental charges. The High Court, therefore, was
not right in deducting 40% of value towards
developmental charges. We think that the contention is
not well-founded. The High Court has noticed in its
judgment thus: