Disposed

Poona Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2017WP/6376/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought FSI/TDR in lieu of money for land acquired for road widening. Corporation failed to decide representation. Court directed Corporation to decide within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent Corporation to decide the petitioner's representation regarding FSI/TDR grant within eight weeks.

Poona Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

skn 1/2 6376.16-wp.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6376 OF 2016

¶4

Poona Bottling Co.Pvt.Ltd. V/s.	...	Petitioner.
State of Maharashtra and others.	...	Respondents.

¶5

N.A.Choudhari with Ram Balppa Laxmipalli for the petitioner. Mrs.M.P.Thakur, AGP for the State. Deepak More for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶6

CORAM : DR.MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. AND G.S.KULKARNI , J. DATE : 2^nd February 2017.

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation dated 11^th December 2015 made by him to respondent No.3 i.e. the Commissioner, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation with regard to grant of FSI/TDR of 1,491.75 sq.meters in lieu of monetary compensation, towards acquisition of the petitioner's land bearing Survey No.2304(part), has not received attention of the respondent Corporation and the same is required to be decided.

¶10

skn 2/2 6376.16-wp.sxw

¶11

The land of the petitioner was acquired for the purpose of road widening of the old Mumbai-Pune National Highway. The compensation which is sought by the petitioner is FSI/TDR in lieu of monetary compensation for acquisition of his land.

¶12

Considering the above limited issue, we direct the respondent- Corporation to decide the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶13

Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order

¶14

as to costs.

¶15

All the concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶16

(G.S.KULKARNI, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE

Poona Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poona Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rehiman Shaikhlal Mulani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kisan Jiwaji Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Anandibai Yashwant Patil (Decd) through Her Lr, Shri. Manoj Patil Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Ankit Vidhya Vasini Mishra Vs Naqvi Sayed Mohammed Raza and 7 Ors.

Shri. Bhanudas Vithoba Kali Vs the State Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Hitiksha Shirish Shah Vs the Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation Nashik and Ors.