Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
The appellants' property was requisitioned in 1987 and acquired under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Although a 1975 agreement fixed a price of Rs 18,98,000, the claimants received this amount in 1993 under protest and later sought higher compensation, leading the …
The appellant, Mis. Tandon Brothers, owned the Rohini Tea Estate and was served a notice under Section 6(3) of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, declaring 1,451.40 acres surplus. After a long delay, the State issued a second notice superseding the first and sought possession of a larger …
The appellants, owners of land acquired compulsorily, received a notice demanding income‑tax on interest accrued due to delayed payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They challenged the notice through writ petitions, which the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed, holding …
The Union of India appealed against an award of solatium and interest granted by an arbitrator under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968, where the respondents' lands had been acquired for defence purposes. The Supreme Court examined whether …
The respondents' 50.55 acres of land in Pathankot were requisitioned for defence under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs. 201 per canal, but the respondents invoked Section 8 and obtained an arbitrator’s award of …
Gurbachan Singh and another filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging a Supreme Court order passed under Article 136 that set aside a High Court and arbitrator award of enhanced solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1864 (as amended by Amendment Act 68 of …
The land in question was notified for acquisition under Section 7 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 and an award was made by the Collector in 1973. The respondents refused to accept the award and, under Section 8(3) read with Rule 9, applied for the appointment of an …
