TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Land compensation enhanced by Supreme Court, tenant-landlord ratio adjusted, solatium and interest awarded.</h1> <h3>Union of India Thru Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Govt. of India Versus Ajit Singh s/o s. Chet Singh</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to enhance compensation for acquired land to Rs. 28,387 per bigha from the initial Rs. 4,000 per bigha. ... - Issues:1. Determination of compensation for acquired land.2. Entitlement to benefits under Amendment Act 68 of 1984.3. Apportionment of compensation between landlord and tenant.Analysis:1. Determination of compensation for acquired land:The case involved a lease granted in 1949 for 30 years with the right to further renewal, terminated in 1960 for acquisition purposes. The compensation was initially set at Rs. 4,000 per bigha by the Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court enhanced it to Rs. 28,387 per bigha, considering the land's potential value for building purposes. The Supreme Court upheld this determination, finding it reasonable and not vitiated by any error of principle.2. Entitlement to benefits under Amendment Act 68 of 1984:The Court examined whether the respondent was entitled to benefits under Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Since the award was from November 2, 1973, the Amendment Act applied. As a result, the claimants were entitled to a solatium of 15% and interest at 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of possession till the deposit in court.3. Apportionment of compensation between landlord and tenant:The Court considered the apportionment of compensation between the landlord and tenant. Despite the termination of tenancy, the tenant remained in possession, and the acquisition was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court referenced previous cases to determine the appropriate apportionment ratio. It settled on a ratio of 60% to the tenant and 40% to the landlord based on factors like the duration of the lease, the nature of the right to enjoyment, and improvements made by the tenant. This decision was influenced by the fact that the lease was for 99 years, with the tenant having enjoyed it for 18 years.In conclusion, the appeals were allowed to the extent of adjusting the apportionment of compensation to 60% for the tenant and 40% for the landlord, without costs.
TaxTMI 
