Find a Lawyer

GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. versus MST. TAJ BEGUM

Compensation for the acquisition of sections 23 and 18 land, the determination of the factors provided by the court, the entire frontage of the land was obtained, which made the last part of the land / property worthless. The acquired land was located on the main road and had great potential for commercial purposes. Under Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notification was issued on 22nd 1982 and award was announced on 15th 1984 and during this time land value in the area increased drastically, increasing. Changes to the price were on record without a coup. Land was not acquired through mutual negotiation, but state authorities were granted public officials, which required the determination of the amount of compensation freely and openly based on a variety of issues from the acquired landowner village. The adjoining property was located in the same state estate that was acquired for the construction of an institute, and more was paid for the acquisition when the tile had the same land revenue in the same real estate. The compensation for the land was already fixed at the rate of a particular amount, so why did the landlords pay the existing lease? I find the same to be the same type of land in consolidated assets and valuable part of the land was more valuable because it was seeking to touch the main road, so there should not be treated. best law firms from Buchay Key lawyer