CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Sale deed can be considered to assess market value of a land – Land Acquisition Act - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Land was acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Collector, Land Acquisition vide his award dated 16.03.1993. At the instance of the land owner a reference was made under Section 18 of the Act to the District Court - Reference Court. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court assessing the compensation of the land acquired at Rs.2,18,333/- per acre – the Land Acquisition Officer preferred the appeal before the High Court and same was partly allowed  and assessed/determined the compensation  at Rs.232.45 per cent. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court assessing/determining the compensation for the land acquired at Rs.232.45 per cent, the original owner/claimant has preferred the present appeal.Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded compensation at Rs.160 per cent i.e. 1 acre out of survey no.359 was sold for Rs.16,000. However, the Learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2183.33 per cent relying upon and considering the sale instance Ex.C1 dated 11.01.1990 executed by the land owners himself. In the appeal preferred by the State the High Court has reduced the amount of compensation at a cost of Rs.232.45 per cent. Apex court held that Section 4 Notification was issued and published for the first time on 27.09.1990. In the present case both, the Reference Court as well as the High Court relied upon Ex.C1 sale deed dated 11.01.1990 by which 5 ½ per cent of the land was sold at Rs.2977 per cent. The sale deed cannot be discarded solely on the ground that it was executed by the land owner in favour of his relative. The sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was for the small parcel of the land i.e. 5 ½ per cent only and after deducting 60 per cent (in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case) the market value can be determined/assessed at Rs.1191 per cent. It is held that the appellant original claimant - land owner shall be entitled compensation for the land acquired with all other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is partly allowed . 

D.D- September 29, 2021 

MUNUSAMY Versus THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Latest Legal News