<?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>2004 (1) TMI 715 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272674</link>
    <description>Market value for acquired land is to be determined primarily from genuine comparable sale deeds of similar land, not from stamp-duty valuation entries or other extraneous market references. Where a claimant&#039;s own registered sale deed shows a lower price for the same transaction, Section 92 of the Evidence Act prevents reliance on a contrary asserted price. On the proved evidence, the relevant sale instances supported a base rate in the range of Rs. 15.37 to Rs. 15.40 per sq. yard, and a further increase for development potential was justified only on that correct base and time gap. Compensation was fixed accordingly, with solatium and other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2024 14:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 715 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272674</link>
      <description>Market value for acquired land is to be determined primarily from genuine comparable sale deeds of similar land, not from stamp-duty valuation entries or other extraneous market references. Where a claimant&#039;s own registered sale deed shows a lower price for the same transaction, Section 92 of the Evidence Act prevents reliance on a contrary asserted price. On the proved evidence, the relevant sale instances supported a base rate in the range of Rs. 15.37 to Rs. 15.40 per sq. yard, and a further increase for development potential was justified only on that correct base and time gap. Compensation was fixed accordingly, with solatium and other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>