Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.34 seconds)
The Executive Engineer (Electrical) vs Smt. Lakshmamma on 29 May, 2019 cites

Kerala State Electricity Board vs C.P. Sivasankara Menon on 29 July, 2008

"16. Now coming to the method to be adopted for valuing fruit bearing tree, the learned District Judge has taken the economic lifespan of the tree as 35 years and has multiplied the net amount derived as income from the tree by capitalising the income using 35 as multiplier. The Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE 4 (1997)2 SCC 693 -6- ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. C.P.SIVASANKARA MENON - 2009 AIR SCW 388, while referring to the earlier decision in KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. LIVISHA AND OTHERS -(2007) 6 SCC 792 has held that compensation payable to the land owners based on the yield from the tree ought to have been worked out by applying appropriate multiplier as was done in the case of STATE OF HARYANA Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER - 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637 and therefore remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the competent Court in respect of a similar matter arising from the State of Kerala.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 28 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Gurcharan Singh & Anr. Etc on 18 January, 1995

4. Hence, in our view, there was no reason for the High Court not to follow the decision rendered by this Court in Gurcharan Singh case [1995 Supp (2) SCC 637] and determine the compensation payable to the respondents on the basis of the yield from the trees by applying 8 years' multiplier. In this view of the matter, -9- in our view, the High Court committed error apparent in awarding compensation adopting the multiplier of 18."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 161 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Land Acquisition Officer, A. P vs Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao & Anr on 7 February, 2007

11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao [(2007) 3 SCC 526: 2007 AIR SCW 1145] wherein claim on yield basis has been held to be relevant for determining the amount of compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act; same principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistri Vs. Financial Commissioner & Revenue Secretary to Government of Punjab [1995 Supp (2) SCC 637], para 4 and Airports Authority of India Vs. Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3 SCC 527]. In Airports Authority [(2002) 34 SCC 527] it was held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 150 - L S Panta - Full Document

Airports Authority Of India vs Satyagopal Roy & Others on 15 March, 2002

11. So far as the compensation in relation to fruit bearing trees are concerned the same would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We may, incidentally, refer to a recent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao [(2007) 3 SCC 526: 2007 AIR SCW 1145] wherein claim on yield basis has been held to be relevant for determining the amount of compensation payable under the Land Acquisition Act; same principle has been reiterated in Kapur Singh Mistri Vs. Financial Commissioner & Revenue Secretary to Government of Punjab [1995 Supp (2) SCC 637], para 4 and Airports Authority of India Vs. Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3 SCC 527]. In Airports Authority [(2002) 34 SCC 527] it was held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 134 - Full Document
1   2 Next