Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)
Smt. Akko Devi And Others vs Union Territory on 1 October, 2008 cites

Dharam Vir Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 May, 2002

Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgments of this Court in R.F.A. No. 894 of 1976--Hans Raj and others v. Chandigarh Administration, decided on 8.4.1980; R.F.A. No. 2608 of 1980--Dharam Vir and others v. Union of India, decided on 18.8.1981; R.F.A. No. 2560 of 1987-- Hazura Singh v. Union of India, decided on 25.2.2004; R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 - Suraj R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 5] Bhan and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 24.9.2008; Jai Kaur v. State of Punjab and another, 1992 LACC 501 and Union of India v. Pal Singh and another, (1994-3) PLR 569 to submit that the claim of the land owners on account of compensation for super structure was wrongly rejected by the learned Court below. The Collector had even exceeded its brief by opining on the nature of construction by holding the same to be unauthorised, whereas no material was placed before him to record such a finding as neither he was the competent authority therefor nor any notice was issued to the land owners for the purpose. The submission is that the land owners are entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of super structure at the rate claimed in the valuation report submitted by them.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - R R Yadav - Full Document

Ramesh Pal Singh, Constable/Driver No. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Its ... on 17 August, 2007

Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgments of this Court in R.F.A. No. 894 of 1976--Hans Raj and others v. Chandigarh Administration, decided on 8.4.1980; R.F.A. No. 2608 of 1980--Dharam Vir and others v. Union of India, decided on 18.8.1981; R.F.A. No. 2560 of 1987-- Hazura Singh v. Union of India, decided on 25.2.2004; R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 - Suraj R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 5] Bhan and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 24.9.2008; Jai Kaur v. State of Punjab and another, 1992 LACC 501 and Union of India v. Pal Singh and another, (1994-3) PLR 569 to submit that the claim of the land owners on account of compensation for super structure was wrongly rejected by the learned Court below. The Collector had even exceeded its brief by opining on the nature of construction by holding the same to be unauthorised, whereas no material was placed before him to record such a finding as neither he was the competent authority therefor nor any notice was issued to the land owners for the purpose. The submission is that the land owners are entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of super structure at the rate claimed in the valuation report submitted by them.
Allahabad High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 17 - V K Shukla - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs Rajendra Singh And Union Of India And ... on 12 October, 1992

Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgments of this Court in R.F.A. No. 894 of 1976--Hans Raj and others v. Chandigarh Administration, decided on 8.4.1980; R.F.A. No. 2608 of 1980--Dharam Vir and others v. Union of India, decided on 18.8.1981; R.F.A. No. 2560 of 1987-- Hazura Singh v. Union of India, decided on 25.2.2004; R.F.A. No. 2340 of 1998 - Suraj R.F.A. No. 579 of 2006 [ 5] Bhan and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, decided on 24.9.2008; Jai Kaur v. State of Punjab and another, 1992 LACC 501 and Union of India v. Pal Singh and another, (1994-3) PLR 569 to submit that the claim of the land owners on account of compensation for super structure was wrongly rejected by the learned Court below. The Collector had even exceeded its brief by opining on the nature of construction by holding the same to be unauthorised, whereas no material was placed before him to record such a finding as neither he was the competent authority therefor nor any notice was issued to the land owners for the purpose. The submission is that the land owners are entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of super structure at the rate claimed in the valuation report submitted by them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 23 - Y Dayal - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Rajakishore Das on 5 February, 1996

On the other hand, learned counsel for Union Territory relying upon State of Orissa v. Rajakishore Das, (1996) 4 SCC 221, submitted that the appellants in the present case have rightly been denied compensation on account of acquisition of super structure as they were only entitled to the scrap value keeping in view the fact that the structures made by them were unauthorised.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 15 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1