Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
Ashish Nanda vs State Of Uttaranchal And Ors. on 9 November, 2005 cites

Ramesh Chand Bansal & Ors vs District Magistrate/Collector ... on 11 May, 1999

The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Bansal v. District Magistrate/Collector, Ghaziabad , paragraph 5 1999 All LJ 1547 : , had held that the imposition of stamp duty on sale deeds is one the actual market value of such property and not the value described in the instruments. The market value of a property may vary from village to village, from location to location and even may differ from the sizes of area and other relevant factors. This apart there has to be some material before such authority as to what is the likely value of such property in that area.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 59 - Full Document

Kshitish Chandra Bose vs Commissioner Of Ranchi on 6 February, 1981

6. So far as the constructed portion is concerned, from the report it will appear that there was no constructed house when the sale deed was executed in the year 1994. The report, shows that on the land in dispute there is no BAGH or GHAR and, as such, the value has to be calculated on the basis of the sale deed and the relevant date is when the sale deed was executed. The market value has to be determined on the basis of character of the land as well as user thereof on the relevant date when the sale deed was executed. Any subsequent change in the property will not affect the rights of the petitioner and the notice on the basis of any subsequent changes can not be said to be legally justified. The report of the Patwari clearly shows that there is no residential property. He has referred a decision Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commissioner of Ranchi. The observations are quoted below (Para 5):
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 124 - S M Ali - Full Document

Aniruddha Kumar And Ashwini Kumar vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, ... on 19 July, 2000

14. In the present case, from the revenue records, admittedly, the land appears to be an agricultural land. Even though some fraction has been purchased still then on the date of purchase it remained agricultural land and, therefore, it cannot be treated to be a residential plot and the valuation cannot be determined straightway on such an assumption that the land is situated in close proximity of residential plot and that the land has to be treated as residential plot and the valuation is to be determined on the basis of building potential. In Act, the market value has to be determined on the basis of the character of the land as well as usage thereof and user of the same having regard to the other factors as are provided in the Act and the Rules. It would be immaterial whether the land is residential plot or agricultural land and for the purpose of determining the market value since the market value is to be determined on the basis of the factors that are laid down in the Act and the Rules.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 24 - D K Seth - Full Document

Smt.Prakashwati vs Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 9 July, 1996

In the case of Prakashwati v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Allahabad 1996 AWC 1331 the Apex Court had held that situation of a property in an area close to a decent colony not by itself would make it part thereof and should not be a factor for approach of the authority in determining the market value. According to the said decision, valuation has to be determined on constructive materials which could be made available before the authorities concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 31 - M M Punchhi - Full Document
1