Allowed

Dasharath Dagadu Ghule and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2008WP/6908/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, quashing it on grounds that possession was not taken and the Act was repealed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 quashed and set aside.

Dasharath Dagadu Ghule and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6908 OF 2008

¶4

 Shri Dasharath Dagadu Ghule & Ors. ...Petitioners

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

 Mr. G.S.Godbole, Advocate, for the petitioners.
 Mr. V.A.Sonpal, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶8

CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ

¶9

 DATE: 2nd December, 2008.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

 1. The petitioners have challenged the notice issued
 on 16.8.2007 under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land
 (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the said
 Act"). This was in pursuance of a Notification issued
 under Section 10(3) of the said Act issued earlier. The
 learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that in
 view of the repeal of the said Act and in view of the
 fact that possession of the petitioners’ land had not
 been taken away by the respondents, the petitioners are
 entitled to retain the land. He relies on a Judgment of

¶12

 this Court in Voltas Ltd. & Anr vs. Additional
Collector and Competent Authority & Ors.(Writ Petition
No.8356 of 2006). In that matter, it has been admitted

¶13

 that though the notice had been issued under Section
 10(5), after a notification was issued under Section
 10(3) of the said Act, possession had not been taken by
 the State. It was held that in view of repeal of the
 said Act, Government could not take possession of the
 land inspite of such a notification. Present case is
 squarely covered by that Judgment.

¶14

 2. Therefore, following the Judgment of this Court
 (cited supra), we allow this Writ Petition and quash and
 set aside the impugned notice.

¶15

(BILAL NAZKI,J.)

¶16

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Dasharath Dagadu Ghule and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasharath Dagadu Ghule and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and 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

Chairman - Vividha Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner (Supply) and Ors.

Anil Agarwal Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sheela Umashankar Gupta and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Friends of Lepers Society,Pune. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Dr. Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs Indian Academy of Pediatrics and Ors.

Messers Dahyalal Makanjee Zaveri (Insurance) and Anr. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.