Land Acquisition Act - Just Compensation - copies of orders/awards passed in relation to the adjacent lands for proving the market rate of the land in question because as mentioned above, these lands were situated in the same area nearer to the lands in question and were also acquired for the same public purpose - is the best of piece of evidence - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS



We are, however, of the view that  the  Reference  Court  having  held
that the appellants were  entitled  to  compensation  at  the  rate  varying
between Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per square feet, should have fixed  one  uniform
rate for the entire land rather than to fix different rates such as  Rs.80/-
, Rs.86/-, Rs.90/- and Rs.100/- per square feet  for  different  landowners.

 In our view, since the land of all the appellants was more or  less  similar
in nature and no evidence  was  adduced  by  the  appellants  to  prove  any
significant  improvement/addition  or/dissimilarity  in  the  land  or   its
quality, the Reference Court should have fixed one uniform rate.

 The appellants (landowners) were, therefore, justified in  filing  the
copies of orders/awards  passed  in  relation  to  the  adjacent  lands  for
proving the market rate of the land in question because as mentioned  above,
these lands were situated in the same area nearer to the lands  in  question
and were also acquired for the same public purpose.

 It  was
all the more because  no  sale  deeds  were  available  for  filing  due  to
peculiar reason that there was a statutory ban imposed  by  Section  123  of
the A.P. Act for sale of private land in the area in question.  It  was  for
this reason, no private sale had taken place of any parcel of  land  at  the
relevant time barring one or two

we are  of  the  considered  opinion  that  the appellants are entitled to get the compensation for their  respective  lands
at the rate of “Rs.90 per square feet”. So far as the  compensation  awarded
by the Reference Court for super-structure built on  each  appellant’s  land
is concerned, it does not call for any interference.  In our  view,  it  was
rightly upheld by the High Court and we also uphold  the  same,  calling  no
interference.

   we wish to observe is  that  in  case  if  any  of  the
appellants apply for allotment of any land/shop/space to TTD  for doing  any
business in the area under their  ownership  or/and  control  then  the  TTD
would be at liberty and may consider their case for providing  them  a  shop
or land or space, as the case may be,  pursuant to any of their  scheme,  if
any in force, on suitable terms  and  conditions  alike  others  as  a  fine
gesture on the part of the TTD, for compliance.

  We, however, make it clear that the observations made in para  33  are
only in the nature of observations and not an order/writ issued against  the
TTD. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS.

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more