Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Vakalatnama: IN THE COURT OF - Nagpur

    Uploaded by

    k
    35 views2 pages
    This 3 sentence document summarizes objections made regarding a land acquisition case. It argues that the reference court failed to consider that the acquired land had 225 fruit-bearing trees correctly valued at Rs. 6,397 per tree. It also claims the court did not recognize the land was permanently irrigated and should have been valued at Rs. 2,50,000 per hectare. Finally, it states the respondents have not filed any other appeals on this case before this court or the Supreme Court.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    vP.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This 3 sentence document summarizes objections made regarding a land acquisition case. It argues that the reference court failed to consider that the acquired land had 225 fruit-bearing trees correctly valued at Rs. 6,397 per tree. It also claims the court did not recognize the land was permanently irrigated and should have been valued at Rs. 2,50,000 per hectare. Finally, it states the respondents have not filed any other appeals on this case before this court or the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    35 views2 pages

    Vakalatnama: IN THE COURT OF - Nagpur

    Uploaded by

    k
    This 3 sentence document summarizes objections made regarding a land acquisition case. It argues that the reference court failed to consider that the acquired land had 225 fruit-bearing trees correctly valued at Rs. 6,397 per tree. It also claims the court did not recognize the land was permanently irrigated and should have been valued at Rs. 2,50,000 per hectare. Finally, it states the respondents have not filed any other appeals on this case before this court or the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    we/am are not members of the Welfare Fund

    Therefore the stamp of Rs 2/- is/are not affixed


    Herewith.
    (N.B. Strike out which is not applicable)

    VAKALATNAMA
    IN THE COURT OF___________________________________________________
    NAGPUR

    ___________________No :-____________/20 .

    APPELLANT / PETITIONER
    ____________________________
    PLAINTIFF/ APPLICANT :
    ____________________________

    :: VERSUS ::
    The learned Reference Court committed error by not keeping in mind,

    the fact that, the land of the present objectors was acquired, while there

    were 225 fruit bearing trees, the valuer had correctly valued rate at Rs.

    6397/- per tree, therefore said ought to have been granted.

    2] The learned Reference Court ought to have seen that, that

    the acquired land was perennially irrigated, therefore the rate of the

    acquired land ought to have been at Rs. 2,50,000/- per hector.


    3] The respondents/objectors have not filed any other appeal

    or petition before this Hon’ble Court or Supreme Court of India anytime

    before in the instant subject matter.

    You might also like