Disposed

Abdul Latif Nabi Saheb Bagwan and Ors. v. Miraj Municipal Council, and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2006WP/3208/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition concerning a reserved land acquisition where the respondent corporation failed to deposit the demanded amount with the Collector. The court directed the corporation to deposit the amount within a specified timeline to proceed with the acquisition award.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.1 to deposit the amount demanded by the Collector with the Collector of Sangli on or before 30th September 2006.

Abdul Latif Nabi Saheb Bagwan and Ors. Vs Miraj… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3208 OF 2005

¶4

Abdul Latif Nabi Saheb Bagwan & Ors. Vs. Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation Sangli & Anr.

¶5

...Petitioners.

¶6

...Respondents.

¶7

Mr.A. R. S. Baxi for the Petitioners. Mr. N.V. Walawalkar for Respondent No.1. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, J. AND DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶9

February 2, 2006 .

¶10

P.C.

¶11

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to

¶12

amend the cause title so far as Respondent No.1 is concerned.

¶13

Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out within the course of the day.

¶14

Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶15

The Petitioners' land has been reserved in the

¶16

Development Plan. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondents took no steps to acquire the land. Notice was given

¶17

¶18

under Section 127 on 10^th June 2003. It is further the case that the Collector had called upon Respondent No.1 to deposit the amount. They have failed to do so and consequently, the Petitioners approached this Court for the relief as prayed for.

¶19

The reply has been filed on behalf of the Corporation. It is pointed out that the Corporation wrote to the Collector on 7^th August 2003 to take steps to acquire the land. On 16^th September 2003, the General Body of the Corporation passed a resolution. In other words, within six months by a notice dated 10^th June 2003 they have taken steps. In the affidavit it is also pointed out that they have now made budgetary allocation for acquisition and that would be passed in the ensuing budget. Considering this situation, we are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:

¶20

-(i) Respondent No.1 to deposit with the Collector of Sangli

¶21

the amount as demanded by the Collector on or before 30^th September 2006;

¶22

-(ii) If by that date the amount is deposited, the Collector to

¶23

¶24

proceed further and take steps to pass the award.

¶25

-(iii) If the amount is not deposited by that date, the reservation shall cease and the land will stand dereserved and it will be open to the Petitioners to develop the land according to law.

¶26

Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

Abdul Latif Nabi Saheb Bagwan and Ors. v. Miraj Municipal Council, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Latif Nabi Saheb Bagwan and Ors. v. Miraj Municipal Council, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bharmu Anna Patil Shikshan Pra.Mandal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Lande Patil Transport and Anr. Vs Pimpri Chinchwad Mathadi and Unprotected Workers Boa

Gulam Hussein Tungekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

S.G. Bawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr. Amol B. Nade and Ors. Vs Mah.'Tra Institute of Medical Edu.and Research and Ors.

Shree Ram Bhadekaru Sangh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.