SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 510

K.RAMASWAMY, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH
K. Periasami – Appellant
Versus
Sub-tehsildar (Land Acquisition) – Respondent


Advocates:
A.MARIAPUTHAM, ARUNA MATHUR, V.BALACHANDRAN

ORDER

1. By a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on 7-3-1973 a large extent of lands including Survey No. 11/4 and 49/7 in Thathanai Village, near Madurai were proposed to be acquired for a Housing Scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of that land @ Rs 92 per cent. On reference under Section 18, the civil court, by its award, enhanced the market value of that land to Rs 800 per cent as against the claim of the appellant at the rate of Rs 1500 per cent. The High Court, by its judgment and decree dated 25-10-1989 confirmed the award of the civil court and dismissed the appeal in Civil Appeal No. 763 of 1987 of the State. It also dismissed the cross-objections of the appellant. Hence, this claimants appeal by special leave.

2. It is not disputed that the market value of lands acquired pursuant to the said notification has been determined by different Benches of the High Court such as Appeal Nos. 538 of 1987 and 1226 of 1986 titled Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v, Lakshmi Ammal{Appeal Nos. 538 of 1987 and 1226 of 1986}. The lands for which the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded at the r



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top