Disposed

Shri. Manoj Ramesh Bhoir v. the Chief Land Officer and Land Surveyor Officer and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Aug 2014WP/2135/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two connected writ petitions concerning land allotment and regularisation notices issued under the MRTP Act. The court directed the CIDCO to decide on applications for regularisation and for grant of alternative land within specified periods while staying the implementation of impugned notices.

What did the court decide?

Stayed implementation of notices under Section 53(1) of MRTP Act and directed CIDCO to decide on regularisation and representation applications within stipulated periods.

Shri. Manoj Ramesh Bhoir Vs the Chief Land Officer and Land… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-2135.13

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2135 OF 2013 WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2139 OF 2013

¶7

Shri. Manoj Ramesh Bhoir … Petitioner Vs. The Chief Land Officer and Land Surveyor Officer & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.2138 OF 2013

¶10

Ramesh Changu Bhoir … Petitioner Vs. The Chief Land Officer and Land Surveyor Officer & Ors. … Respondents

¶11

Mr. Ajit J. Kenjale, for the Petitioners in all Petitions. Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all Petitions. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, AGP, 'A' Panel, for Respondent No.3 in all Petitions.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 26^th AUGUST, 2014

¶14

P.C.

¶15

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and

¶16

the learned counsel representing first and second Respondents.

¶17

The case made out in these Petitions by the Petitioners is

¶18

more or less identical. Therefore, we are making a reference only to the

¶19

1 of 4

¶20

2 wp-2135.13

¶21

facts of the case in Writ Petition No.2135 of 2013. The case of the Petitioner therein is that the land bearing Survey No.78/1/A situated at village Chaanje, Navi Mumbai was the ancestral land of the Petitioner which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As per the scheme of the City and Industrial Development Corporation Limited (for short “the CIDCO”), which is known as “12.5% scheme”, the allotment of a plot of land more particularly described in Exhibit C-1 to the Petition has been made to the Petitioner. In respect of the structure on the acquired land, a notice under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “the MRTP Act”) has been served upon the Petitioner. The case of the Petitioner is that he has applied for regularisation of the structure subject matter of notice under Section 53 (1) of the MRTP Act. His case is that a representation dated 25th February, 2013 has been made by the Petitioner for grant of another land in lieu of the land granted under 12.5% scheme. It is contended that for various reasons, the land allotted to the Petitioner cannot be utilized by the Petitioner for any purpose.

¶22

Repeatedly, time was granted to first and second Respondents to take appropriate decision on the representations made by the Petitioner. Even today, the learned counsel appearing for the first and second Respondents (officers of the CIDCO) has sought time.

2 of 4

wp-2135.13

Considering the pendency of the representations made by the Petitioners, the Petitions need not be kept pending and the same are disposed of by passing the following order :-

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(i) We direct the Appropriate Authority of the CIDCO to take appropriate decision on the applications made by the Petitioners for regularisation of the structures subject matter of the impugned notices under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. Appropriate decision shall be taken by the concerned officer of the CIDCO within a period of two months from today. The decision taken on the applications shall be communicated to the Petitioners in the Petitions;

¶29

(ii) Till the date of communication of the decision taken on the applications for regularisation, the impugned notices under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act shall not be implemented. If the said decisions be adverse to the Petitioners, we direct that the impugned notices under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act shall not be implemented for a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the decisions to the Petitioners;

3 of 4

wp-2135.13

(iii) We direct the CIDCO to decide the representations made by the Petitioners for grant of suitable lands in lieu of the lands which are already granted under 12.5% scheme. Appropriate decision shall be taken on the representations made by the Petitioners for grant of such lands within a period of six weeks from today;

¶34

(iv) The decision shall be communicated to the Petitioners;

¶35

(v) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on merits of the representations/applications made by the Petitioners;

¶36

(vi) All contentions of parties are kept open;

¶37

(vii) The Petitions are disposed of on above terms;

¶38

(viii) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶39

(G.S. KULKARNI, J ) (A.S.OKA, J )

¶40

4 of 4

Shri. Manoj Ramesh Bhoir v. the Chief Land Officer and Land Surveyor Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Manoj Ramesh Bhoir v. the Chief Land Officer and Land Surveyor Officer 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

Mrs. Nutan Pathare Vs Shri. Onali Faizanehusain Bohari (Since Decd) through Legal Heirs, Smt. Shirinbai Onali Vora and or

Shri. Khandu Laxman Gotrane and Anr. Vs the Additional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Shri. Jagdish Hiraman Jagtap Vs the Additional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra through Its Ministry of Revenue and Ors. Vs Ashok Dhanyakumar Tavnnappannawar and Ors.

Shree Bhagavati Stone Crusher, through Laxmiputtra S. Jamadar Vs the Tahasildar Akkalkot and Ors.

Dinesh Natvarlalmakani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Ors.