<?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>1972 (1) TMI 104 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191920</link>
    <description>Compensation for acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is to be determined by fixing market value as on the section 4 notification date, using comparable bona fide sales, expert evidence and, where appropriate, capitalisation of actual or prospective rent. Potentiality is relevant only as part of market value, not as a separate head. The remote sale instance was rejected as an unsafe guide, while smaller comparable sales and lease rental evidence were treated as more reliable, with development deduction and rent adjustment applied. Severance compensation was justified because the balance land lost value, and solatium under section 23(2) was payable on the market value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 May 2017 15:06:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (1) TMI 104 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191920</link>
      <description>Compensation for acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is to be determined by fixing market value as on the section 4 notification date, using comparable bona fide sales, expert evidence and, where appropriate, capitalisation of actual or prospective rent. Potentiality is relevant only as part of market value, not as a separate head. The remote sale instance was rejected as an unsafe guide, while smaller comparable sales and lease rental evidence were treated as more reliable, with development deduction and rent adjustment applied. Severance compensation was justified because the balance land lost value, and solatium under section 23(2) was payable on the market value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>