LAND ACQUIRING BODY Vs. RAMPRASAD H. MAHARAJ
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Land Acquiring Body
Ramprasad H. Maharaj
Click here to view full judgement.
(2.)The application for substitution in CA No. 339 of 2000 is allowed.
(3.)Heard Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellants and Mr R.P. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. We have been taken through by the learned counsel appearing on either side, to the relevant portions of the award passed by the Reference Court as well as the judgment of the High Court in these appeals. One glaring instance of infirmity which justifies our interference and remitting the matters for fresh consideration is that, relying upon the then prevailing nebulous position of law in the matter of proof of comparable sale deeds that they could not be relied upon to be of evidentiary value unless someone connected with the transaction or deed/document is examined before the Court to formally prove them, both the Reference Court as well as the High Court not only declined to place reliance but completely eliminated from consideration some of the materials, relevant and vital according to the learned Senior Counsel, for substantiating the case of the appellants. The determination by the Reference Court as well as the High Court seems to have been made after eschewing those materials. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents also indicated that the same manner of treatment has been meted out to the claimants also.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.