Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.35 seconds)The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Executive Board Of The Methodist Church ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 September, 1984
The petitioner has submitted
that rather in one of the case of Methodist Church Vs. Union of India this
court itself had fixed the rate of residential property as Rs.28,351/- pertaining
to the land acquired way back in 2000 for metro in nearby situated property
in the area of Civil Lines and the judgment Ex. PW-1/25 is the judgment
LAC NO. 5/1/11 Page:-16/28
passed in Chaman Lal Mehra Vs. UOI on 14.7.11 with respect to the property
involved with the same notification in which the judgment of Methodist
Church Vs. UOI was passed. The instances of sale deed relied upon by the
respondent cannot be taken into account for two reasons firstly admittedly the
property in question falls under village 'Civil Station' as mentioned in the
award which comes under Category 'C' as mentioned in the circle rates of
Delhi issued vide notification no. F.1(152)/Regn. Br./Div.com./2011/780
dated 4.12.12 read with notification no. F.2(12)/Fin.(E.I)/Part File
Vol(ii)/3548 dated 18.7.07 and secondly none of such instances have been
taken into account by LAC as per the award. Moreover, the LAC himself has
fixed the rate Rs.54,600/- per sq. mtr. and even if the factor of 2 is applied
deeming the property as industrial property (though the same is refuted and
agitated by the petitioner for the reasons mentioned herein after) still the rates
shown by the respondent do not correspond with the rates given by the LAC.
The reasons mentioned by the LAC was that sale deed produced by the
claimant pertained to freehold properties but the LAC did not take into
account the order of Hon'ble High Court whereby this property was also
ordered to be converted into freehold on 5.4.10. The second reason given
was that the sale deed were out dated but even that is so then 12% per annum
enhanced value upto the date of notice issued u/s 4 of LAC Act could have
been considered. The Ld. LAC has found fault with the calculations of the
petitioner but had failed to give reasons regarding his calculations and has not
at all discussed as to what was the basis with the respondent to get the market
value fixed at the value assessed by LAC. So reasons prevailing in the mind
of LAC while passing the award in question is not available before this court.
In these circumstances, the court should keep in mind the estimation and
expectation of prospective buyers and sellers.