Disposed

Sir N.P.Vakil Trust and Anr. v. Union of India Aayakar Bhavan and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2008WP/1683/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Bombay High Court addressed an attempt by the respondents to resume lands. The court held that while the petition itself did not warrant a deep substantive inquiry, the respondents were directed not to resume possession without first adhering to the due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents not to resume the land in the possession of the petition without following due process of law.

Sir N.P.Vakil Trust and Anr. Vs Union of India Aayakar… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.1683 OF 2007

¶5

 Sir N.P.Vakil Trust & Anr. .. Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

 Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

 Mr.N.H.Seervai, Sr.Advocate i/b Mulla and Mulla &
 Craigie Blunt and Caroe for the petitioners

¶9

 Mr.S.R.Rajguru with Mr.L.T.Satelkar for the
 respondents

¶10

 CORAM : J.N.PATEL &
 K.K.TATED, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2008

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 1. Heard.

¶14

 2. The petitioner has approached this cour

¶15

 seeking a Writ of this court to declare that the

¶16

 attempted resumption of the said lands by the
 respondents is ultra vires Article 246 read with
 Entry 18 of List II to the Seventh Schedule to the
 Constitution of India and Article 300A of the

¶17

¶18

 Constitution of India, contrary to law, and wholly

¶19

 without jurisdiction and therefore, this court
 should prohibit the respondents, by themselves,
 their servants, agents, officers and subordinates,
 from resuming the said lands, acting under the
 impugned notices or at all, and/or in any manner
 dispossessing the petitioners from the said lands
 except by the due process of law, and in any event,
 not without first establishing their legal right,
 title and entitlement to do so in a court of
 competent jurisdiction and for other ancillary
 reliefs like withdrawing the impugned notices which
 have been issued by the respondents to the
 petitioners annexed as Exhibits EE and CC1 to CC3.

¶20

 3. Our attention has also been drawn to the
 decisions of the Division Benches of this court in

¶21

 the case of Abdul Samad Abdul Kadir Thakur vs. the
Union of India and Ors. in Writ Petition No.176 of
1983 decided on 9.10.91 and the other in the case

¶22

 of Shri Vinayak Yadneshwar Sathe vs. Union of
India & Ors.in Writ Petition No.7916 of 2003
decided on 6.5.08 and the decision of the Supreme
 Court rendered in the case of Union of India

¶23

¶24

through Deputy Salt Commissioner v. Shri Puranmal
Lalchand Mundra and anr.reported in AIR 1996 SC
3195.

¶25

 4. After giving our anxious consideration to

¶26

 the decisions which have been relied upon by the
 parties and going through the impugned notices, we
 are of the view that the petition can be disposed
 of with a direction to the respondents not to
 resume the land in possession of the petition
 without following due process of law.

¶27

 5. We may reiterate that the emphasis is of due
 process of law and it will be open for the parties
 to agitate their rights at appropriate forum.

¶28

 6. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

 ( J.N. PATEL, J )

¶30

 ( K.K. TATED, J )

Sir N.P.Vakil Trust and Anr. v. Union of India Aayakar Bhavan and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sir N.P.Vakil Trust and Anr. v. Union of India Aayakar Bhavan and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Rajgor Vs M/S. M. R. M. Associates and Ors.

Sandeep Saradchandra Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janhit Manch and Ors. Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Amit Jain

Chandubhai Chunibhai Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya and 4 Others

Waman Ramchandra Madya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.