https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292770 The SC examined compensation principles under a land tenure abolition scheme, holding that no compensation was payable for loss of a concessionary reduced jama because the concession was not a vested legal right and expiry of the settlement allowed full assessment. It further held that solatium was payable where compensation was determined on market value under the Land Acquisition framework, unless expressly excluded. For irrigation bunds, tanks and wells, valuation on a yield-capitalised market value basis was upheld, not reinstatement value. The Court also treated the broader claim for river beds as untenable, while allowing inquiry into compensation for cultivable bhathas and similar portions. Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction was held to survive a statutory finality clause. en-us Mon, 08 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jan 2021 17:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292770 The SC examined compensation principles under a land tenure abolition scheme, holding that no compensation was payable for loss of a concessionary reduced jama because the concession was not a vested legal right and expiry of the settlement allowed full assessment. It further held that solatium was payable where compensation was determined on market value under the Land Acquisition framework, unless expressly excluded. For irrigation bunds, tanks and wells, valuation on a yield-capitalised market value basis was upheld, not reinstatement value. The Court also treated the broader claim for river beds as untenable, while allowing inquiry into compensation for cultivable bhathas and similar portions. Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction was held to survive a statutory finality clause. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Apr 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292770