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

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

T.P.Act - Registered sale deed coupled with an agreement of re conveyance - for a transaction to constitute mortgage by conditional sale, it is necessary that the condition is embodied in the document that purports to effect the sale . But not when   Sale Deed dated 14.06.1972 and  Agreement of re conveyance dated 14.06.1972 having been executed on the same day and both ought to be read together and when the Sale Deed was executed only as a security for the loan and it was never the intention of the 1st respondent-plaintiff to convey the suit property. Since 1st respondent- plaintiff has paid back the loan amount i.e. Rs.6,700/- as is evident from the subsequent Agreement dated 05.06.1974, the Courts below rightly recorded the concurrent findings of fact that  Sale Deed is not binding on the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Once repayment was made, the 1st respondent-plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for no need to ask for  cancellatio...
Read more

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS

The appellant entered into a Joint Venture  Agreement  with  M/s            Shapoorji  Pallonji  &  Company  Limited  for  the  purpose   of            construction of roads in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  The Joint            Venture  was  awarded  a  contract  by  the  National   Highways            Authority of India for construction of roads as a  part  of  the            Golden Quadrilateral, Phase-2 Project in Andhra Pradesh. The description reads  :  "Hot                  mix plant batch type with electronic controls and bag  type                  filter arrangement 160 tons per hour capacity." ...
Read more