//
archives

Reference Court

This tag is associated with 3 posts

LA Act – Deduction for amenities etc., at 40% – not correct -1/4 th correct – Apex court held that In our view, the High Court on the facts of the case was justified in taking into consideration the size of the plots which were exhibited for the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot acquired, but we are unable to uphold the cut of 40% which has been imposed by the High Court since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal limits and the deduction of 1/4th the market value made by the Reference Court is appropriate and liable to be restored.=CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7227-7257 OF 2014 [@Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.5161-5191 of 2001] Mohinder Singh & Ors. .. Appellants -vs- State of Haryana .. Respondents = 2014 – Aug.Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41807

LA Act – Deduction for amenities etc., at 40% – not correct -1/4 th correct – Apex court held that In our view, the High Court on the  facts  of  the  case  was  justified  in taking into consideration the size of the plots  which  were  exhibited  for the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot  acquired,  but  we  are unable … Continue reading

Land acquisition – Rejection of Sale Deeds on surmises not valid – High court too not corrected the error – Apex court held that In the order of the Reference Court as well as in the order of the High Court there is no indication on what basis the said finding had been arrived at. What had led the learned courts below to come to the conclusion that the appellants had prior knowledge of the proposed acquisition and on that basis had executed the sale deeds “in a hurry to dispose of the plots which had been carved out” also is not known. The further conclusion that the vendees of the aforesaid sale deeds, not being local residents, did not know about the acquisition proceedings and they were charged fanciful prices for the land is plainly unacceptable in the absence of any materials on record to the said effect. Evidence of vital nature furnished by the two sale deeds dated 13.06.1969 (Exbt.1) and 16.10.1969 (Exbt.2) could not have been rejected on the basis of such surmises and conjectures as has been done in the present case. =M/S MAHAMAYA GEN. FINANCE … APPELLANT (S) CO. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. … RESPONDENT (S)= 2014 ( May. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41525

Land acquisition – Rejection of Sale Deeds on surmises not valid – High court too not corrected the error – Apex court held that In  the  order  of   the Reference Court as well as in the order  of  the  High  Court  there  is  no indication on what basis the said finding had been  arrived  at.    What … 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

Blog Stats

  • 2,859,667 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