https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468891 In land acquisition proceedings, the Court upheld transposition of the State to secure complete adjudication, and rejected res judicata because the earlier finding had not attained finality in the connected appeals. It held that, where renewal of the lease was not proved and the lease had expired by efflux of time, the claimant was entitled only to compensation for leasehold interest and not as an absolute owner; the compensation was therefore apportioned 20 per cent to the claimant and 80 per cent to the State. The market value of the land, the deduction for development, and the separate valuation of the building and trees were substantially affirmed. en-us Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 May 2026 14:55:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468891 In land acquisition proceedings, the Court upheld transposition of the State to secure complete adjudication, and rejected res judicata because the earlier finding had not attained finality in the connected appeals. It held that, where renewal of the lease was not proved and the lease had expired by efflux of time, the claimant was entitled only to compensation for leasehold interest and not as an absolute owner; the compensation was therefore apportioned 20 per cent to the claimant and 80 per cent to the State. The market value of the land, the deduction for development, and the separate valuation of the building and trees were substantially affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468891