Allowed

M/S. Devi Construction Company, through Partner, Mr. Vinod K. Baney v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2013WP/2970/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning land acquisition and Floor Space Index (FSI). The court directed the State to complete the acquisition and pass an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act within 15 months and ordered Municipal Corporation to grant additional FSI within three months if not already done.

What did the court decide?

Direction to complete land acquisition and pass award within 15 months; direction to grant additional FSI within 3 months.

M/S. Devi Construction Company, through Partner, Mr. Vinod… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

ash

wp-2970.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2970 OF 2013

¶6

M/s. Devi Construction Company. .. Petitioner Vs

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents

¶8

Shri G.S. Godbole i/by Shri R.S. Kohli for the Petitioner. Shri J.S. Deo, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 7. Shri G.H. Keluskar for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATE : 12TH JUNE 2013

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the second and third Respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on instructions states that the Petitioner is confining the Petition to the prayer clause (A-1).

¶12

The learned AGP on instructions states that the Petitioner has raised an objection to the area notified under the acquisition notification and in view of the objection, a suggestion has come from the third Respondent Municipal Corporation to issue either a fresh

¶13

ash

¶14

2 wp-2970.13

¶15

notification or a corrigendum to the notification already issued and therefore, the entire process will take a time of one and half years.

¶16

Perusal of the agreement dated 24^th February 2006 shows that apart from the taking over advance possession of the land which is reserved for Octroi Naka, advance possession of an area of 1379 sq. meters was handed over by the Petitioner which is affected by 12.00 meters' wide development plan road provided in the draft development plan. Clause (1) of the said Agreement provides that the possession of the area of 1379 sq. meters has been handed over by the Petitioner to the third Respondent Municipal Corporation against the grant of additional FSI. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the second and third Respondents is that the letter dated 30^th January 2013 shows that the said additional FSI was made available to the Petitioner. According to us, prima facie, the letter does not specifically say so. However, it is not necessary to enter into the said controversy. If the additional FSI is not made available as yet, the third Respondent will do so within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶17

At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that as the possession of the land subjected to acquisition was handed over on the basis of the private negotiations before the notification was issued, the Petitioner is entitled to rental

ash

wp-2970.13

compensation. As regards the grant of rental compensation, as per the policy of the State Government, it will be open for the Petitioner to make appropriate application in terms of the said policy to the concerned authority. If such an application is made, the same shall be decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶22

Considering the prayer clause (A-1) which is the only prayer pressed into service by the Petitioner, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order.

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

(a) We direct the first Respondent to complete the acquisition in relation to the land in question in accordance with law and to pass an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of 15 months from today;

¶25

(b) If additional FSI has not been allotted in accordance with Clause (1) of the Agreement dated 24^th February 2006 till today, the second and third Respondents shall grant additional FSI as per the

ash

wp-2970.13

Agreement to the Petitioner within a period of three months from today;

¶30

(c) In the event any dispute arises as regards the grant of additional FSI in terms of the said Agreement, it will be open for the Petitioner to move this Court;

¶31

(d) It will be open for the Petitioner to make appropriate application to the appropriate Authority for grant of rental compensation as per the policy of the State;

¶32

(e) If such application is made, the same shall be decided by the concerned Authority as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶33

(f) The Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶34

(A.R. JOSHI, J)

¶35

( A.S. OKA, J )

M/S. Devi Construction Company, through Partner, Mr. Vinod K. Baney v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Devi Construction Company, through Partner, Mr. Vinod K. Baney v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Jayant Hari Sawant Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation and Ors.

M/S. Autofab Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jai Bhawani Co-Operative Housing Society and Anr. Vs Thane Municipal Corporation, through Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Arun Vidyadhar Chougule Vs Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner

Shri. Ahmed Ibrahim Parwani Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Amar Vamanrao Bhagat Vs Kailas Park Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.