//
archives

Land Acquisition Act 1894

This tag is associated with 13 posts

Land Acquisition Act – enhancement of Market value – by applying principle of 12% increase per year on the market value as the 12% per annum increase which courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case.” – Apex court enhanced the compensation = Kashmir Singh …Appellant(s) Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. …Respondent(s) = published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41088

Land Acquisition Act – enhancement of Market value – by applying principle of 12% increase per year  on the market value as the  12%  per  annum increase  which  courts  have  often  found  to  be  adequate  in compensation matters hardly does justice  to  those  land  owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken  of the fact that … Continue reading

Land Acquisition Act – sec.30 & sec.18 references -Collector award 1985 Sec.30 disposed in 1991- with in 6 weeks applied for sec.18 reference – Lower court awarded enhanced compensation – High court held that the reference was barred by limitation – Apex court set aside the order of High court – after disposal of sec.30 only sec.18 arises – as they applied with in 6 weeks – reference was not barred by limitation = MADAN & ANR. … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … RESPONDENT (S) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41051

Land Acquisition Act – sec.30  & sec.18 references -Collector award 1985 Sec.30 disposed in 1991- with in 6 weeks applied for sec.18 reference – Lower court awarded enhanced compensation – High court held that the reference was barred by limitation – Apex court set aside the order  of High court – after disposal of sec.30 only sec.18 … Continue reading

Contempt of Court = Bonafide mistake in not furnishing the required information T.C.GUPTA & ANR Vs. HARI OM PRAKASH & ORS. published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40876

Bonafide mistake in not furnishing the required information to the High Court may not amount to     contempt of court  – Apex court set aside the orders of High court =        .  Before we part with this topic, we would like to refer to              one aspect … Continue reading

Condonation of Delay does not arise under sec.28 A of Land acquisition act = whether limitation for filing the application for re-determination of the compensation under Section 28A of the Act would commence from the date of the award or from the date of knowledge of the court’s award on the basis of which such application is being filed. 6. Though, there is nothing on record to substantiate the appellants’ claim that they could acquire the knowledge of the Court’s award only on 17.7.2006 and immediately took steps to file application for re-determination under Section 28A of the Act. 7. The issue involved herein is no more res-integra. The appellants’ case before the High Court as well as before us has been that the limitation would commence from the date of acquisition of knowledge and not from the date of award. = For the purpose of filing application under Section 28A of the Act, counsel for the appellants applied for a certified copy of the Court award on 17.5.2006, and though the copy of the said award was ready for delivery on 29.5.2006, it was obtained by learned counsel for the appellants only on 3.6.2006. Application for re-determination of the amount of compensation was filed on 18.7.2006 by the appellants, on the basis of the said Court’s award. D. The Special Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated 22.9.2008, rejected the said application on the ground that the same was filed with a delay of 4 days.= The legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.” (See : The Martin Burn Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1966 SC 529; and Rohitas Kumar & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 30) In view of the above, we are of the candid view that none of the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants is tenable. 14. As the matters are squarely covered by the above referred to judgments, these appeals are devoid of any merit. The cases do not warrant any interference. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

published in   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40681 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 6976-6980 of 2013   Popat Bahiru Govardhane Etc. …Appellants   Versus   Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. …Respondents   J U D G M E N T   Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.   1. These appeals have … Continue reading

Land Acquisition Act = When the land is in developed area , deduction of 10 % is appropriate but the deduction of 1/3rd in market value is harsh =deduction of 1/3rd value of the land would be very harsh on the appellants because the appellants would be getting substantially less compensation on account of the said deduction. It was also submitted that the High Court had taken note of the fact that the land in question was very much within the developed area. If the land was within the developed area, the High Court should not have deducted 1/3rd of the value of the land in question.= Deduction to the extent of 1/3rd of the value of the land is definitely harsh even as per the observations made by the High Court as the land in question is very much in the developed area. The area has been developed by the HUDA and therefore, the deduction of 1/3rd of the value of the land is not justified. Upon considering all relevant facts, in our opinion, it would be absolutely just if 10% value of the land is deducted instead of 1/3rd because the land is forming part of a well developed area.= The market value of the land in question, as determined by the High Court, is Rs. 11.15 lacs per acre and instead of taking 1/3rd, we direct that 10% of the said value shall be deducted. The claimants shall be entitled to other statutory benefits like solatium, interest etc. on the enhanced compensation.

 published in  http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40661 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6958 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24357 of 2010) Indraj Singh (Dead) …..Appellants through LRs. & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Anr. …..Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6959 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) … Continue reading

Land Acquisition Act = The reference court like an appellant authority enhanced the compensation basing on the award of land acquisition officer even though the claimants not adduced any evidence and passed separate awards . High court set aside the award of lower court , Apex court granted an opportunity to adduce evidence to the claimants with conditions and remanded the matter to the trail court = The failure or the omission to lead evidence to prove the claim appears in the above context to be a case of some kind of misconception about the legal requirement as to evidence needed to prove cases of enhancement of compensation. We do not in that view see any reason to deny another opportunity to the landowners to prove their cases by adducing evidence in support of their claim for enhancement. Since, however, this opportunity is being granted ex debito justitiae, we deem it fit to direct that if the Reference Court eventually comes to the conclusion that a higher amount was due and payable to the appellant-owners, such higher amount including solatium due thereon would not earn interest for the period between the date of the judgment of the Reference Court and the date of this order. These appeals are with that direction allowed, the judgments and orders impugned in the same modified to the extent that while the enhancement order by the Reference Court shall stand set aside, the matters shall stand remanded to the Reference Court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving to the landowners opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claims for higher compensation. No costs.

published in    http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40531    REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5160 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.354 of 2012) Ramanlal Deochand Shah …Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.5161 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.395 of 2012) Kantilal … Continue reading

Land Acquisition Act = Advance possession payment of compensation like rents as fixed by LAO – enhanced by District court under sec.18 reference = pending appeal interim orders to deposit half of the compensation is legal = whether the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench was justified in directing the State to deposit the rental compensation with the Appellate Court at the rate of 8% per annum on the award value passed by the Reference Court for the period of occupation before formal acquisition, allowing the appellant to withdraw only 50% of such rental compensation during the pendency of the appeal. = It is not in dispute that in most of the cases the rental compensation has not been paid. If that factual position continues, it clearly is a case where the amount to which a person is entitled is withheld without any legitimate excuse. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that in most of the cases the proceedings have not yet attained finality and are pending either before the Reference Court or in appeal. That does not provide a legitimate excuse to the appellants to withhold payment of the rental compensation. The amount calculated on the basis of award by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be below than the amount to be ultimately fixed. If in appeal or the reference proceeding, there is any variation, the same can be duly taken note of as provided in law. There is no difficulty and we find none as to why the compensation on the basis of value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be paid. If there is upward revision of the amount, the consequences will follow and if necessary, redetermination of the rental compensation can be made and after adjustment of the amount paid, if any, balance can be paid. If, however, the Land Acquisition Officer’s award is maintained then nothing further may be required to be done. In either event, payment of the rental compensation expeditiously would be an appropriate step. Looking at the problem from another perspective, one thing is clear that authorities have clearly ignored the sense of urgency highlighted in the various resolutions.”- For the reason aforesaid, if the High Court recalled the order dated 5th October, 2010 and directed the State Government to deposit rental compensation at the rate of 8% of the amount awarded by the Reference Court with the appellate Court, allowing the appellant to withdraw the half of the amount, no interference is called for. However, this order will not stand in the way of appellant to claim proportionate higher rental compensation, if the order of the Reference Court is upheld or further enhancement of compensation is made by the Appellate Court. 20. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed with observations as made above. No costs.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40514 Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.    5084              OF 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No.31318  of 2011) KAZI AKILODDIN SUJAODDIN           … APPELLANT Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.          … RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted.  The appellant is aggrieved by impugned order   dated   15th  September,   2011   passed   by   the   Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in a   Review   Application,   MCA   No.774/2011.   By   the   impugned order the Division Bench reviewed and recalled the judgment and order dated 5th  October, 2010  passed in Writ Petition No.3883/2010(D)   … Continue reading

Land Acquisition Act – fixation of market value – We also find merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the landowners that while fixing market value of the acquired land the learned Single Judge committed serious error by not considering an important piece of evidence, i.e., Exhibit PW9/A dated 23.11.1999 vide which HSIIDC had allotted land to M/s. Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India (Private) Limited at the rate of Rs.1254.18 per square yard. Although, this document was produced before the Reference Court but the same was not taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation.The same error has been repeated in the impugned judgment. If this document is taken into consideration, then market value of the acquired land would come to Rs.60,69,360 per acre. By making deduction of 50% towards development cost and granting annual increase of 12/15% (cumulative), market value of the land will be much higher than Rs.37,40,000 per acre.= In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeals filed by the parties under Section 54 of the Act as also the cross objections. The parties shall be free to urge all points in support of their respective cause and the High Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by the observations contained in this judgment. 36. Maruti Udyog Limited shall be free to file an appropriate application before the High Court for its impleadment or grant of leave to act as intervenor in the appeals filed by the parties. If such an application is filed, the same shall be decided on its own merits. 37. The State Government/HSIIDC shall pay the balance of compensation determined by the High Court, i.e., Rs.37,40,000 – Rs.28,15,356 = Rs.9,24,644 per acre to the landowners and/or their legal representatives along with all statutory benefits within a period of four months from today. The payment shall be made to the landowners and/or their legal representatives by following the procedure laid down in the interim orders passed by this Court.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40499 Page 1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4843-4940 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) NOs. 17962-18059 of 2011) Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited …Appellant versus Udal and others etc. etc. …Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4967-73 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) NOs. 18660-18666 of 2011) CIVIL … Continue reading

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE = Whether the agreement is barred by Section 4 of the Delhi Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act, 1972 and is void under section 23 of the Contract Act. (PO3 WS).= appellant had served a legal notice upon the respondents, in paras 5 and 6 whereof it was alleged against the respondents that they had suppressed from the appellant the fact that an award had been published with respect to the subject lands. Thereafter, in para 7 of the notice, it was asserted as under:- That apart from above, by virtue of Section 3 & 4 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, there is prohibition on transfer of such lands, which has been acquired by the Central Government under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise. Thus, you have also committed an offence u/s 3 & 4 of the said Act and you have made yourself liable to be prosecuted u/s 9 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act 1972.” 5. It does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to now urge to the contrary.- The same is that it is not obligatory for a Court to decree specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property merely because it would be legally permissible to do so.

‘     ITEM NO.31 COURT NO.3 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4628/2013 (From the judgment and order dated 31.8.2012 in RFA No.75/2012 of the High Court of … Continue reading

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966- whether reservation of the parcels of land owned by the respondents in the Regional plans/Development plans prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the 1966 Act’) will be deemed to have lapsed because the same were not acquired or no steps were commenced in that respect within six months of the service of notice under Section 127 of that Act. = in terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act, if any land reserved, allotted or designated for any purpose specified is not acquired by agreement within 10 years from the date on which final regional plan or final development plan comes into force or if a declaration under sub-section (2) or (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act is not published in the Official Gazette within such period, the owner or any person interested in the land may serve notice upon such authority to that effect and if within 12 months from the date of service of such notice, the land is not acquired or no steps, as aforesaid, are commenced for its acquisition, the reservation, allotment or designation shall be deemed to have lapsed and the land would become available to the owner for the purposes of development. The defaults, their consequences and even exceptions thereto have been specifically stated in the State Act. For a period of 11 years, the land would remain under reservation or designation, as the case may be, in terms of Section 127 of the MRTP Act (10 years + notice period). 134. However, if the provisions of Section 11-A of the Central Act were permitted to punctuate a scheme of the State Act and the award is not made within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Central Act, the acquisition proceedings will lapse which will frustrate the rights of the State as well as the scheme contemplated under Section 126 as well as Section 127 of the State Act and that would not be permissible in law. This being legislation by incorporation, the general reference to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act shall stand excluded. Section 126(2) of the State Act refers to the manner of declaration as contemplated under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act but the legislature intentionally avoided making any reference to other features contained in Section 6 of the Central Act as well as the time-frame prescribed under that Act. On the contrary, proviso to Section 126(2) of the MRTP Act spells out its own time-frame whereafter such declaration cannot be made subject to the provisions of Section 126(4). The unamended provisions of Section 127 of the State Act though refer to the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act but without making any reference to the time-frame prescribed under the said Act. In this section also, the specific time-frame and the consequences of default thereof have been stated. Sections 128 and 129 of the MRTP Act relate to acquiring land for the purpose other than for which it is designated in any plan or scheme and taking of possession of land in cases of urgency respectively. 138. The provisions relating to planned development of the State or any part thereof, read in conjunction with the object of the Act, show that different time-frames are required for initiation, finalisation and complete execution of such development plans. The period of 10 years stated in Section 127 of the MRTP Act, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable ex facie. If the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, with its serious consequence of lapsing of entire acquisition proceedings, are bodily lifted and read into the provisions of the MRTP Act, it is bound to frustrate the entire scheme and render it ineffective and uncertain. Keeping in view the consequence of Section 11-A of the Central Act, every development plan could stand frustrated only for the reason that period of two years has lapsed and it will tantamount to putting an end to the entire development process.” (emphasis supplied) 24. In our view, the observations contained in paragraph 133 of Girnar Traders (III) unequivocally support the majority judgment in Girnar Traders (II). 25. As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the majority 3Page 39 judgment in Girnar Traders (II) lays down correct law and does not require reconsideration by a larger Bench. We further hold that the orders impugned in these appeals are legally correct and do not call for interference by this Court. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2733 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9934 of 2009) Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur …Appellant Versus Satyabhamabai Bhimaji Dawkher and others …Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2735 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 8756 of 2009) CIVIL APPEAL NO.2736 OF 2013 … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,859,662 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,903 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com