<?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>2011 (9) TMI 1214 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295187</link>
    <description>Comparable sale deeds must match the character of the acquired land: beel sales could not be treated as on par with sali lands because there was no evidence that the sold plots had been drained, filled and converted into residential land, though they remained relevant for the beel plot itself. Separate additions for appreciation, frontage and east-facing advantage were impermissible, as they involved unwarranted enhancement and double counting when valuing large undeveloped land by reference to a small developed plot. A 33.33% development deduction was sustained as within the permissible range. Market value had to be fixed with reference to the Gazette publication date of the Section 4(1) notification, and any earlier advance compensation was adjustable with interest against the final award.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 May 2021 12:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 1214 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295187</link>
      <description>Comparable sale deeds must match the character of the acquired land: beel sales could not be treated as on par with sali lands because there was no evidence that the sold plots had been drained, filled and converted into residential land, though they remained relevant for the beel plot itself. Separate additions for appreciation, frontage and east-facing advantage were impermissible, as they involved unwarranted enhancement and double counting when valuing large undeveloped land by reference to a small developed plot. A 33.33% development deduction was sustained as within the permissible range. Market value had to be fixed with reference to the Gazette publication date of the Section 4(1) notification, and any earlier advance compensation was adjustable with interest against the final award.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295187</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>