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

2013 Supreme(SC) 1204

G.S.SINGHVI, V.GOPALA GOWDA
Samiyathal – Appellant
Versus
Spl. Tahsildar – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna and Mr. Sasikala, Advocates.

ORDER :

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 11.12.2009 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court whereby the appeals filed by Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode were allowed and the compensation determined by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Erode (hereinafter described as the `Reference Court') was reduced from 20/- to 8/- per square feet.

3. By notification dated 22.05.1991 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), the State Government proposed the acquisition of 32.10.5 hectares land situated in village Erode for a public purpose, namely, construction of flats and houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short, `the Board') under the Neighbourhood Scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 37,500/- per acre.

4. Feeling dissatisfied with the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants and other landowners filed applications under Section 18 of the Act. Thereupon, the Collector made reference to the Court for determination












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