Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)
The Special Tahsildar vs J.P.Kannan on 21 October, 2011 cites

Sub Collector vs R.S. Raveendran on 26 September, 2005

8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that though the respondent has not filed any cross-objection, as laid down in the decisions reported in 2006-2-L.W.102 (Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram v. R.S.Raveendran), 1992 T.L.N.J. 194 (M.Bari Sultan v. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Project, Madurai, an un-reported decision of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 29.04.2002 in A.S.Nos.840 of 1987 batch cases and (1985) 3 Supreme Court Cases 737 (BHAG SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH), this Court can award higher compensation to the land owner / the respondent herein, if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the market value of the land fixed by the Court below is less.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 32 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Bhag Singh & Ors vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh, Through ... on 14 August, 1985

8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that though the respondent has not filed any cross-objection, as laid down in the decisions reported in 2006-2-L.W.102 (Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram v. R.S.Raveendran), 1992 T.L.N.J. 194 (M.Bari Sultan v. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Project, Madurai, an un-reported decision of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 29.04.2002 in A.S.Nos.840 of 1987 batch cases and (1985) 3 Supreme Court Cases 737 (BHAG SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH), this Court can award higher compensation to the land owner / the respondent herein, if this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the market value of the land fixed by the Court below is less.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 317 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Administrator General Of West Bengal vs Collector, Varanasi on 16 February, 1988

10. As far as the contention of the learned Government Advocate (CS) that the Court below has not considered the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-3 is concerned, it has to be pointed out that the Court below has fully considered the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-3. In the decision reported in 1997 (I) CTC 127 (referred to supra) the Apex Court has held that sales instances of small extent of land do not form any reasonable basis to determine higher compensation for the vast extent of land. Similar view has been taken by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 943 = 1988 (2) SCC 150 (Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi) and AIR 1984 SC 892 = 1984 (2) SCC 324 (Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer) if no sales of lands of a larger extent have not taken place just prior to the 4 (1) notification and the only sale deed available relates to a smaller extent of land, then it is permissible for the Court to rely upon such a sale deed and while fixing the market value of the larger extent, proper deduction should be made in the price of the smaller extent of land. But, in this case, Ex.R-2-sale deed, dated 24.01.1996, has been marked by the appellant and which is the data sale deed relied upon by the appellant for fixing the market value, but it has to be seen whether the land covered by Ex.C-2 or Ex.R-2 is nearer to the acquired land and whether the land covered by Ex.C-2 or Ex-R-2 is comparable with the acquired land, the relative locational advantages available to the aforesaid lands, etc., have to be considered before deciding to rely upon the particular document.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 332 - Full Document

Smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra And Others Etc vs The Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 15 February, 1984

10. As far as the contention of the learned Government Advocate (CS) that the Court below has not considered the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-3 is concerned, it has to be pointed out that the Court below has fully considered the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-3. In the decision reported in 1997 (I) CTC 127 (referred to supra) the Apex Court has held that sales instances of small extent of land do not form any reasonable basis to determine higher compensation for the vast extent of land. Similar view has been taken by the Hon 'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 943 = 1988 (2) SCC 150 (Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi) and AIR 1984 SC 892 = 1984 (2) SCC 324 (Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer) if no sales of lands of a larger extent have not taken place just prior to the 4 (1) notification and the only sale deed available relates to a smaller extent of land, then it is permissible for the Court to rely upon such a sale deed and while fixing the market value of the larger extent, proper deduction should be made in the price of the smaller extent of land. But, in this case, Ex.R-2-sale deed, dated 24.01.1996, has been marked by the appellant and which is the data sale deed relied upon by the appellant for fixing the market value, but it has to be seen whether the land covered by Ex.C-2 or Ex.R-2 is nearer to the acquired land and whether the land covered by Ex.C-2 or Ex-R-2 is comparable with the acquired land, the relative locational advantages available to the aforesaid lands, etc., have to be considered before deciding to rely upon the particular document.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 211 - M Rangnath - Full Document

G.M., Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr on 31 July, 2008

13. Learned counsel for the respondent basing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2009) 2 MLJ 78 (SC) = 2008 (14) SCC 745 (G.M., ONGC v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel) submitted that considering the escalating prices of urban lands 10% per year should be taken as the escalating cost and it should be calculated cumulatively. In the said decision, the Apex Court has laid down as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 331 - Full Document

Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), ... vs Chinna Ramaswami, Nagarajan And Periya ... on 7 November, 2002

He further submitted that as per the decision reported in (2003) 1 M.L.J. 124 (Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Adi Dravidar Welfare, Srivilliputhur v. Chinna Ramaswami) if the acquired land is severed and the un-acquired portion is smaller in extent and the same could not be put to any proper use, then the land owner is entitled for severance compensation.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - A Kulasekaran - Full Document

Sri Saunu vs Collector, Land Acquisition on 28 August, 1996

6. Learned Government Advocate (CS) appearing for the appellant submitted that the Court below has committed an error in relying upon Ex.C-2, which relates to a very smaller extent of land for fixing the market value of the larger extent of land; it has not been proved under what circumstances and for necessity the small portion of land was sold by the vendor and under what circumstances the same was purchased by the vendee under Ex.C-2; the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence of R.W.1. He further submitted that while the acquired lands are agricultural lands, the lands conveyed under Ex.C-2, dated 26.05.1993, relates to a house-site and therefore, the land conveyed under Ex.C-2 cannot be compared with the acquired land. He further submitted that the decision of the Court below is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1997 (I) CTC 127 (Sri Saunu v. Collector, Land Acquisition) wherein, in paragraph 2, the Apex Court has laid down as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1