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>Supreme Court affirms compensation award for acquired land, stresses correct legal principles</h1> <h3>State of Haryana Versus Gurcharan Singh and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and affirmed the award and decree of the reference Court in a case involving compensation for ... - Issues:1. Determination of compensation for acquired land and fruit-bearing trees separately.2. Applicability of suitable multiplier for compensation calculation.3. Error in enhancing compensation by the High Court based on Price Index.Detailed Analysis:1. The case involved an appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court regarding the acquisition of land for a residential colony. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the acquired land and fruit-bearing trees separately. The High Court, on appeal, confirmed the market value of the land but enhanced the compensation for the fruit-bearing trees by 60%, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.2. The main contention raised by the appellant was that the High Court erred in determining compensation separately for the land and fruit-bearing trees. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that compensation should be awarded based on the value of the acquired land, including any benefits derived from it. The market value is determined considering the yield, and a suitable multiplier should be applied to calculate the compensation. The court emphasized that the compensation cannot be based on the nature of the land and fruit-bearing trees separately.3. The Supreme Court highlighted that the appropriate multiplier for determining compensation based on yield from trees or plantation should not exceed 8 years, as established in previous decisions. In this case, both the Collector and the High Court applied multipliers exceeding 8 years, resulting in an excessive award of compensation. The High Court's decision to enhance compensation by 60% based on the Price Index was deemed illegal, as it deviated from established legal principles.4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming the award and decree of the reference Court. The Court directed the parties to bear their own costs, emphasizing the importance of applying the correct legal principles in determining compensation for acquired land and fruit-bearing trees.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
