Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.18 seconds)
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Talshi Ramjibhai on 30 March, 1999 cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Maharau Srawan Hatkar on 21 February, 1995

In this case, award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on July 30, 1980 and, therefore, direction could not have been given by the Reference Court to the appellant to pay additional amount of compensation as envisaged under section 23(1-A) of the Act. Therefore, the said direction will have to be set aside. Again, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Maharau Srawan Hatkar (Supra) has ruled that additional amount as envisaged under sub-sections (1-A) & (2) of Section 23 are not part of the components of compensation awarded under section 23(1) of the Act and direction to pay interest on those amounts cannot be granted. Therefore, direction given by the Reference Court to pay interest on the amount payable to the claimants under section 23(2) of the Act also will have to be set aside. In the present case, possession of the lands acquired was taken on December 10, 1973 and there is no dispute between the parties regarding date on which possession of the acquired lands was taken from the land owners. Under the circumstances, Reference Court should have directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from December 10, 1973 for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the realisation of the amount. The direction given by the Reference Court to the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1.1.1988 for one year and thereafter to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum till realisation of the amount will have to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 48 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

The State Of Gujarat & Ors vs Rama Rana & Ors on 13 December, 1996

In the case of State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Rama Rana & Ors. 1997(3) G.L.R. 1954, the Supreme Court has emphasised that Court has statutory duty to the society to subject evidence on record to a great scrutiny and to award a just compensation to the claimants in cases of compulsory acquisition of lands. We may state that other lands of village Dhudharej were placed under acquisition pursuant to publication of preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the Act on June 28, 1973 for the same public purpose. Therein,the Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated May 2, 1983 had offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 2.50 ps to Rs. 5.00 per sq.mt. for agricultural lands and non-agricultural lands respectively. Feeling dissatisfied with the said offer, the claimants in those cases had sought references and Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No. 2/84 to 22/84 and 37/84 had by judgment and award dated December 31, 1987 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12/- per sq.mt. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, First Appeals No. 1555/88 to 1576/88 were preferred by the State Government and the Division Bench vide judgment dated March 23, 1999 has held that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 12/- per sq.mt. for non-agricultural lands and Rs. 9/- per sq.mt. for agricultural lands. The award made by the Court is at least relevant material and would be in nature of admission with regard to the valuation of the land on behalf of the State and if the lands involved in the award are comparable and in the reasonable proximity of the acquired lands, the rates found in the said award would be a reliable material to afford a basis to work upon for determination of the compensation for similarly acquired lands on a later date. The award, therefore, cannot be dismissed as inadmissible for the purpose of determination of compensation. A judgment of a Court in land acquisition case determining the market value of the land in the vicinity of the acquired lands even though inter partes can be relied upon either as an instance or one from which the market value of the acquired lands can be deduced or inferred. The fact that other lands from this very village were placed under acquisition pursuant to publication of preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the Act on June 28, 1973, is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No. 2/84 to 22/84 and 37/84, the Reference Court by judgment and award dated December 31, 1987 had awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 12/per sq.mt. Further it is an admitted position that in First Appeals No. 1555/88 to 1576/88 which were directed against the judgment and award dated December 31, 1987 rendered by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No. 2/84 to 22/84 and 37/84, the High Court has modified the said award and held that the claimants of those cases were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 12/- per sq.mt. for non-agricultural lands and Rs. 9/- per sq.mt. for agricultural lands. The evidence of nine witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants establishes that the lands acquired in the present case were similar in all respects to the lands in respect of which modified award was passed by the High Court. Though the claimants have failed to prove the sale instances to enable the Court to determine market value ofthe acquired lands,the previous award as modified by the High Court can be taken into consideration advantageously for the purpose of determining market value of the acquired lands. We may state that the High Court in those matters has determined market value of similarly situated lands on the basis of sale deeds which were proved in those cases. Under the circumstances, we hold that the claim advanced by the claimants is not liable to be defeated on the ground that they did not adduce reliable evidence to enable the Court to determine market value of the acquired lands.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 52 - Full Document
1   2 Next