Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ravinder Narain And Anr vs Union Of India on 28 February, 2003
24. In the ultimate analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the allotment of land vide order dated December 4, 1994, produced at Ex.13 passed by the Collector, Mehsana, is the only relevant piece of evidence which would enable the Court to determine the market value of the acquired lands. It is well-settled that for determination of compensation for a large area, rate fixed for smaller plot can be taken into consideration when there is absence of other material evidence (See: Ravinder Narain and Anr. v. Union of India ). Therefore, this Court proposes to consider effect of Ex.13. As noticed earlier, the order allotting land dated October 16, 1998 (Ex.17) cannot be considered since it was passed after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present acquisition proceedings. Exhibit 13, which is the order regarding grant of Government land to Anarde Foundation indicates that the lands which were subject matter of grant were non-agricultural lands. Moreover, the piece of land was small compared to the acquired lands. Therefore, appropriate deductions will have to be made on account of the fact that the acquired lands in the instant case were agricultural lands and large tracts of lands were acquired.
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... vs P. Veerabhadarappa Etc. Etc on 9 January, 1984
27. For the foregoing reasons, all the Appeals succeed in part. The common Award dated December 31, 2004, rendered by the learned Joint District Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Patan, in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1032/2002 to 1046/2002, awarding compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 54.57 ps. per sq.mt. is hereby modified and it is held that the claimants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 41/- per sq.mt. in all for their acquired lands. The other statutory directions given by the Reference Court in the impugned Award are not interfered with at all and are hereby confirmed. The Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no orders as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this Judgment immediately. The Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Reference Court at the earliest.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Arjan Singh Alias Puran vs Kartar Singh And Others on 2 March, 1951
21. The test for admitting additional evidence has been laid down authoritatively by the Supreme Court in Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh and Ors. in which it has been held that the legitimate occasion for the application of Order 41, Rule 27 is when, on examining the evidence as it stands, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent, not where a discovery is made, outside the Court, of fresh evidence and the application is made to import it. The true test, therefore, is whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced?
1