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>Revised Valuation for Land Acquisition Appeals: Dock & Brick Lands</h1> <h3>Kailas Chandra Mitra Versus Secretary Of State For India</h3> The appeals under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1891 concerning the acquisition of lands for the Port of Chittagong resulted in a revised ... - Issues:Land Acquisition Act of 1891 - Reference under Section 18Market value determination for dock lands and brick landsValidity of awards made by Collector and confirmed by District JudgeClassification of lands as waste landsCalculation of compensation based on annual produce and standard of purchaseAnalysis:The judgment involves five appeals arising from a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1891, relating to the acquisition of lands for the improvement of the Port of Chittagong. The main issues revolve around the determination of market value for dock lands and brick lands, the validity of awards made by the Collector and confirmed by the District Judge, and the classification of lands as waste lands affecting the compensation amount.In the case of dock lands, the appellant claimed a kaimi ryoti interest, disputing the awarded rate of &8377;100 per kani. The Judge's estimate of two years' purchase was deemed unjustified, considering the lack of direct evidence supporting this valuation. Discrepancies in award amounts for similar lands led to a revised valuation of &8377;1,040 per kani based on the fair annual produce and a reasonable rate of purchase, deviating from the initial award.Regarding the brickfield lands, the lands were erroneously categorized as waste lands despite evidence of cultivation and leveling. The absence of opposing evidence from the Government supported the conclusion that these lands were wrongly included in the lower valuation category. The compensation was recalculated based on the annual produce, resulting in a revised valuation of &8377;400 per kani for the arable land portion.The judgment also addressed the calculation of compensation based on the area of the lands, deducting the portion occupied by roads to determine the final compensation amount. Additionally, the claimant was entitled to statutory allowances and interest as per legal provisions.Cost allocation for the appeals varied, with each party bearing their costs in some instances and costs being awarded based on success in appeal No. 300. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the valuation discrepancies and the factors considered in determining fair compensation for the acquired lands, ensuring a just outcome in line with the Land Acquisition Act provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
