<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (9) TMI 354 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191727</link>
    <description>In compulsory acquisition, market value is fixed as of the notification date on the basis of reliable comparable sales or other cogent material, and unsuitable sales data such as small, dissimilar, or remote lands may be disregarded. On the record, the claimants did not prove a higher value, but the court accepted the Advocate General&#039;s concession and enhanced compensation partly, fixing the rate at Rs. 18 per cent for non-wet lands while maintaining the Collector&#039;s award for wet lands. The claim for severance charges and injurious affection failed because actual damage and expenditure were not proved. Interest was held payable on solatium as part of the excess compensation awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2022 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (9) TMI 354 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191727</link>
      <description>In compulsory acquisition, market value is fixed as of the notification date on the basis of reliable comparable sales or other cogent material, and unsuitable sales data such as small, dissimilar, or remote lands may be disregarded. On the record, the claimants did not prove a higher value, but the court accepted the Advocate General&#039;s concession and enhanced compensation partly, fixing the rate at Rs. 18 per cent for non-wet lands while maintaining the Collector&#039;s award for wet lands. The claim for severance charges and injurious affection failed because actual damage and expenditure were not proved. Interest was held payable on solatium as part of the excess compensation awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>