Allowed

M/S. Shivram Developers v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2009WP/1129/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed multiple writ petitions and a civil application, holding that petitioners could retain their lands. The court relied on the repealed Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and a settlement of fact that no scheme was sanctioned and possession had not been taken.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of writ petitions and civil application; entitlement to retain lands; bringing legal representatives of Opponent No.4 on record.

M/S. Shivram Developers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1129 OF 2008 WITH C.A. NO.1648 OF 2008 IN W.P. NO. 1129 OF 2008

¶3

M/s. Shivram Developers. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶4

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1206 OF 2008

¶5

M/s. Shivram Developers. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents --

¶6

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1207 OF 2008

¶7

M/s. Shivram Developers. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents --

¶8

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1208 OF 2008

¶9

M/s. Shivram Developers. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents -- ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1209 OF 2008 M/s. Shivram Developers. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents --

¶10

¶11

Shri S.M. Gorwadkar i/by Shri R.S. Khadapkar for the Petitioner. Shri V.P. Malvankar, AGP for the State.

¶12

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 14TH DECEMBER, 2009

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Civil Application No.1648 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.

¶15

1129 of 2008 is allowed and legal representatives of Opponent No.4 are allowed to be brought on record.

¶16

It is not disputed before us that the possession of the land has not been taken and in none of them the scheme had been sanctioned and the Petitioners had not taken any benefit or exemption under the scheme.

¶17

Affidavits of the Competent Officer have been filed in all these cases admitting the fact that the possession so far had not been taken. In view of the above admitted position of fact and the settled principle of law in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr. v. Additional Collector & Competent Authority & Ors., 2008(5) Bom.C.R. 746, the Petitioners would be entitled to retain their lands and no further action can be taken under the

¶18

provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act, 1976

¶19

¶20

which Act in fact already stands repealed.

¶21

In view of the above cases, these Writ Petitions are allowed. The Petitioners are entitled to retain their respective lands in their possession.

¶22

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶23

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J

M/S. Shivram Developers v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Shivram Developers 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

Vivek S. Kundalkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vivek S. Kundalkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs Rita Subhash Shah Vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and Ors.