Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (1.05 seconds)
Land Acquisition Collector vs Usha Devi & Ors on 30 March, 2016 cites

Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, ... on 21 July, 1988

of 19.2 In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona & Anr. (1988) 3 SCC 751 while referring to the factors which ought to be taken into consideration while determining the market value of the acquired land, it was observed that a smaller plot was within the reach of many whereas for a larger block of land there were implicit rt disadvantages. As a matter of illustration, it was mentioned that a large block of land would first have to be developed by preparing its layout plan. Thereafter, it would require carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (during which the invested money would remain blocked). Likewise, it was pointed out that there would be other known hazards of an [pic]entrepreneur. Based on the aforesaid likely disadvantages it was held that these factors could be discounted by making deductions by way of allowance at an appropriate rate ranging from 20% to 50%. These deductions, according to the Court, would account for land required to be set apart for developmental activities. It was also sought to be clarified that the applied deduction would depend on, whether the acquired land was rural or urban, whether building activity was picking up or was stagnant, whether the waiting period during which the capital would remain locked would be short or long; and other like entrepreneurial hazards.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 832 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

K.S. Shivadevamma And Ors. Etc vs Assistant Commissioner And Land ... on 8 December, 1995

In K.S. Shivadevamma v. Asstt. Commr. and Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 2 SCC 62, it was held: (SCC p. 65, para 10) "10. It is then contended that 53% is not automatic but depends upon the nature of the development and the stage of development. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends upon development need in each case. Under the Building Rules 53% of land is required to be left out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for laying the roads and other amenities 33-1/3% is required to be deducted. Where the development has already taken place, [pic]appropriate deduction needs to be made. In this case, we do not find any development had taken place as on that date. When we are determining compensation underSection 23(1), as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), we have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made, and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. In view of the obligation on the part of the owner to hand over the land to the City Improvement Trust for roads and for other amenities and his requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains, electricity etc., the deduction of 53% and further deduction towards development charges @ 33- 1/3%, as ordered by the High Court, was not illegal."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 120 - Full Document

Hasanali Walimchand (Dead) By L.Rs vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 January, 1998

45. This Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of each given case, has taken the view that deduction on account of expenses of development of the sites could vary from 10% to 86.33% depending on the nature of the land, its situation, the purpose and stage of development. Reference can be made to the cases of K.S. Shivadevamma v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acqusition Officer [(1996) 2 SCC 62], Ram Piari v. Land Acquisition Collector, Solan [(1996) 8 SCC 338],Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona [(1988) 3 SCC 751], Hasanali Walimchand (Dead) by L` v. State of Maharashtra [(1998) 2 SCC 388]."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 30 - S R Babu - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next