Allowed

Janardan Harishchandra Patil v. the Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2010WP/1795/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of a notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. Relying on Voltas Limited (2008), it held that proceedings abated following the Act's repeal by the 1999 Repeal Act since the government retained no possession.

What did the court decide?

Notice dated 7/3/2005 quashed; proceedings under the Principal Act declared abated.

Janardan Harishchandra Patil Vs the Additional Collector and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

AJN

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1795 OF 2010

¶6

Janardan Harishchandra Patil ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Additional Collector & Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration, Dist. Thane & Anr. ... Respondents

¶9

Mr. A.R. Shaikh for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P. for the State.

¶11

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

¶12

DATED : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2010.

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

The case of the petitioner in this petition is that in view

¶15

of the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act,

¶16

1976 (for short, “the Principal Act”) by the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, the proceedings initiated under the Principal Act in respect of the petitioner's

¶17

¶18

AJN

¶19

land be declared as having been abated since the possession of the concerned land is still with the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed that notice dated 7/3/2005 issued under Section 10(5) of the Principal Act calling upon the petitioner to hand over excess vacant land (for convenience, “ the said land ”) be quashed.

¶20

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the possession of the said land is still with the petitioner and, hence, this case is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Voltas Limited & Anr. v. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration & Ors. 2008 (5) Bom.C.R. 746 .

¶21

Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the affidavit of Mr. Bhausaheb Joti Patil dated 11/8/2010 in which, in paragraph 3, it is stated that the possession of the excess land as per the table reproduced in the paragraph is not obtained by the Government. Mr. Gokhale, learned

¶22

AJN

¶23

¶24

A.G.P. confirmed this fact and accepted the petitioner's contention that this case is covered by the above stated judgment.

¶25

In view of this admitted position, the petitioner must succeed. Hence, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. The proceedings initiated in respect of the said lands under the Principal Act are declared as having abated. The petition is disposed of.

¶26

[MRS. RANJANA DESAI, J.]

Janardan Harishchandra Patil v. the Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janardan Harishchandra Patil v. the Additional Collector and Competent Authority and Anr.

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

The Greater Bombay Veershaiv C. H. Socity Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika and 10 Ors.

Baburao Narayan Pagare Vs the Collector, Collecter Office, Nashik and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mohd. Yusuf M. Abdulla Bhaji D.H. Hasina Mohd. Yusuf Bhaiji and Othrs

Madan Sadanand Patil Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Farooq Abdulla Keredia Vs the Municipal Corpn. for and Anr.

Mahendra Velji Shah and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.