1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court Rules on Land Compensation, Overturns High Court's Reduction, Orders State to Pay Claimants Promptly.</h1> The SC addressed appeals concerning compensation for land acquisition. The claimants challenged the HC's reduction of compensation by Rs. 10 per sq.mtr, ... - Issues:1. Quantum of compensation challenged by claimants and State.2. Justification for reducing market value of land.3. Reliance on previous awards Ex. 16 and Ex. 46.4. Error in reducing compensation rate by High Court.Analysis:1. The Supreme Court addressed two sets of appeals challenging the quantum of compensation: Civil Appeals filed by claimants and State. The claimants questioned the High Court's further reduction of the market value of the land by Rs. 10 per sq.mtr. The State questioned the reliance on Ex. 16 over Ex. 46 and the justification for not further reducing the compensation rate.2. The High Court reduced the rate of compensation based on two main reasons: the distance between the land covered by Ex. 16 and the present land, and the difference in land area. The claimants argued that the lands were similar, situated near Viramgam town, and had potential for development, justifying their claim for higher compensation.3. The State relied on Ex. 16 being 5 kms away from the present land, and Ex. 46's compensation rate to support their argument for a lower compensation rate. However, the Court rejected the reliance on Ex. 46 and the State's request for the yield method for valuation, emphasizing the similarity between the acquired lands and Ex. 16.4. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in reducing the compensation rate by 25% based on the larger area of acquisition and the distance between the lands. It clarified that the acquisition was not large when considering each landowner's holdings individually. The Court also highlighted that the distance between the lands was not relevant, as the quality and potentiality of the lands were similar.5. Consequently, the Court upheld the findings of the Referring Court, setting aside the High Court's decision to reduce the compensation rate by Rs. 10 per sq.mtr. The claimants' appeals were deemed meritorious, while the State's appeals were dismissed. The State was directed to pay the compensation to the claimants promptly as per the Supreme Court's order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
