Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. Etc.Etc vs Shardaben & Ors. Etc. Etc on 19 January, 1996
In Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation and others v. Shardaben and others, (1996) 8
SCC 93, the Apex Court expressed the view that burden is
always on the claimants to prove by adducing reliable evidence
that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is
inadequate and lands are capable of fetching higher market value.
It is the duty of the court to closely scrutinize the evidence, apply
9
the test of a prudent and willing purchases i.e., whether he
would be willing to purchase in open and normal market
conditions of the acquired land and then to determine the just
and adequate compensation.
State Of Uttar Pradesh Etc vs Smt. Ram Kumari Devi Etc on 15 February, 1996
In State of U.P. and others v. Ram
Kumari Devi (Smt.) and others, (1996) 8 SCC 577, the Supreme
Court ruled that when 13.75 acres of land was offered for sale
in an open market, no prudent man would have credulity to
purchase the land on square foot basis.
Gujarat Industrial ... vs Narottambhai Morarbhai & Anr on 23 August, 1996
Similar view was taken
in the case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation v.
Narrottambhai Morarbhai and another, (1996) 11 SCC 159.
G. Narayan Rao vs The Land Acquisition Officer on 15 July, 1996
1/b, the sale deed dated
14.7.1987 in respect of 1 kattha, was executed for a consideration
14
of Rs.10,000/-. Vide Ext. 1/d a sale deed was executed on
6.3.1986 for a consideration of Rs.7500/- in respect of five
decimals of land. Certified copies of the judgments in Land
Acquisition Case nos. 58 of 1990 & 19 of 1990 were marked as
Exts.
The Land Acquisition Officer Revenue ... vs Smt. L. Kamalamma (Deed) By Trs. & Ors., ... on 19 January, 1998
In this context we may refer with
profit to the decision rendered in the case of Land Acquisition
Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chitor v. L. Kamalamma
(Smt) dead by LRs and others K.Krishnamachari and others,
(1998) 2 SCC 385 wherein it has been held that when no sales of
11
comparable land are available where large chunks of land had been
sold, even land transaction in respect of smaller extent of land
could be taken note of as indicating the price that it may fetch in
respect of large tracts of land by making appropriate deductions
such as for development of the land by providing enough space for
roads, sewerage, drains, expenses involved in formation of a
layout, lump sum payment as also the waiting period required for
selling the sites.
Kasturi & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 12 November, 2002
In Kasturi and others v. State of
Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 it has been opined that there is a
difference between a developed area and an area having potential
value, which is yet to be developed and 20% deduction towards
development charge as against the normal 1/3rd form the amount of
compensation would be regarded as justified.
Land Acquisition Officer, A. P vs Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao & Anr on 7 February, 2007
In Land Acquisition Officer A.P.
v. Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao and another, 2007 AIR SCW
1745 the Apex Court while dealing with the issue of compensation
determined on yield basis observed that the Court is not precluded
from taking into consideration factors such as potentiality and
utility of land.
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Gyan Devi (Dead) By L.Rs. And Ors on 20 October, 1994
6. Though initially a submission was
canvassed by Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned senior counsel appearing
for the BIADA, that the matter should be remitted to the
Reference Court in view of the decisions rendered by the Apex
Court in U.P.Awas Even Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, (1995) 2
SCC 326, Abul Razzak v. Kerala Water Authority, (2002) 3
SCC 228, and the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal
no.2780 of 1998, yet eventually a consensus was arrived at that
the matter should be heard on merits inasmuch as in some cases
the matter was earlier remanded and the Reference Court has
8
reiterated the award. Thus, I proceed to deal with the appeal on
merits.