Allowed

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2010WP/1116/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court declared that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is not applicable to the petitioner's property in village Erangal as it is fully built up with no vacant land. The Court further quashed the impugned notifications and mutation orders relying on the Voltas judgment.

What did the court decide?

Petition made absolute; declared Act not applicable to property; quashed notifications dated 19/10/2000 and 31/3/2005; quashed mutation order dated 17/4/2006 and mutation entry No. 112 dated 17/5/2006

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

OSWP+1116

mss

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1116 OF 2010

¶7

GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. & ANR.

¶8

.. PETITIONERS

¶9

Vs.

¶10

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

¶11

.. .. RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr. Mr. F. D’vitre with Ashish Kamath i/b DSK Legal for the petitioners Ms. S. M. Dandekar, AGP

¶13

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 14/9/2010

¶15

P.C.

¶16

In this petition the petitioners have inter alia prayed that it may be declared that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is not applicable to the petitioner No. 1’s property admeasuring 227 sq. mtrs. bearing CTS No. 387 along with the bungalow and other structures standing thereon, in village Erangal, Marve, Taluka Borivali, District Mumbai Suburban. The petitioners have further prayed for an order declaring that

OSWP+1116

mss

the impugned notifications dated 19/10/2000 and 31/3/2005 issued by respondents 1 to 3, the impugned mutation order dated 17/4/2006 passed by respondent 3 and the impugned mutation entry No. 112 dated 17/5/2006 passed by respondents 4 and 5 are all illegal, void and/or without jurisdiction.

¶21

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to order under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act) 1976. In paragraph 4 thereof it is stated that the lands situated at Erangal, Mathura Road and Vijaywada, (which are the lands in question) are fully built up and there is no vacant land and, therefore, these lands will have to be excluded from the total holding of the Company.

¶22

Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the affidavit of

¶23

Sachin Ingali, the City Survey Officer, Goregaon, Mumbai. Paragraph 5 thereof states as under:

¶24

“I say that no notice under Section 10(5) of the

¶25

said Act has been received by my office to take possession of the vacant land which has been vested in

OSWP+1116

mss

the State Government under Section 10(3) of the said Act and therefore, the possession of the said land has not been taken by my department.”

¶30

Counsel submitted that in view of this factual position, this case is covered by the judgment of this court in Voltas Ltd. & Anr., v. Additional Collector & Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration & Ors., 2008 (5) BCR 746 . Learned AGP Ms. Dandekar has not disputed this position. Hence the petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) (ii) and (iii) contained in paragraph 28 of the petition.

¶31

5. Petition is disposed of.

¶32

(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 4 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

Ms. Edwina Lal Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Bhagwat J. Pandit Vs Mun.Corpn.of Gr.Bombay and Ors.

Bajirao Shravan Bhandari and 62 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 11 Ors.

Ganpatrao Shankarrao Gulave and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganpatrao Shankarrao Gulave and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Budya Somvar Choudhari and Arn. Vs Hiren a. Shah and Ors.