Partly allowed

Akshay a. Agarwal v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2009WP/5683/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged proceedings and notices under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, alleging their lapse after the 1976 Act was repealed by notification in favor of the 1999 Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition held absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) concerning the petitioner's land; petition disposed of.

Akshay a. Agarwal Vs Additional Collector and Competent… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

mss

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5683 OF 2009

¶5

Akshay A. Agarwal .. .. PETITIONER Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. .. RESPONDENTS

¶6

Mr. A. P. Mhatre, for the petitioners

¶7

Mr. S. S. Bhende, AGP

¶8

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ.

¶9

DATED: 12/8/2009

¶10

P.C.

¶11

The petitioner has prayed that it may be declared that in view of the Notification dated 1^st December, 2007 issued by respondent 2 repealing the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and adopting the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1999, the proceedings in respect of the petitioner’s land as set out in the notification passed by the competent authority and the State Government U/s. 10(1) and 10(3) and the notice issued by the Competent Authority under Section 10(5) of the Principal Act has lapsed and abated and the

¶12

same are therefore, non-est and unenforceable. The petitioner has also prayed that the notifications under Section 10(1) and Section 10(2) of the Principal Act dated 5/8/89 and 5/1/2006 be quashed and set aside.

¶13

Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the present petition is covered by judgment of this court in Voltas Ltd. & Anr., v. Additional Collector & Competent Authority & Ors., 2008(5) Bom. C.R. 746. Affidavit is filed by Dattatraya Sambhaji Doifode, Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar Urban Agglomeration,Thane. In the affidavit it is stated that the respondents have not taken actual possession of the petitioner’s land.

¶14

In view of this statement and in view of the admitted position that this petition is covered by judgment of this court in Voltas’ case , the petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) qua the petitioner’s land.

¶15

Petition is disposed of.

¶16

(Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.)

¶17

(A. A. Sayed, J.)

Akshay a. Agarwal v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay a. Agarwal v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Ulhasnagar 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

Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Mandir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

President - Shramik Mahila Udyojak Sanstha Pune and Anr. Vs Prabha Gopal Jagatap and Ors.

Shri Rajkumar Shridhar Pawar Vs the Secretary, Swami Vivekanand Hkshan Sanstha and or S

Guruwarya Dadasaheb Bowa Shikshan Sanstha Vs Education Officer (Secondary) - Zilla Parishad, Nasik and Ors.

Kishore Nilkanth Thakur Vs the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Kalya Dharma Patil and Ors. Vs the Maharashtra State, through Its Department of Urban Development and Anr.