Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Salim Abdul Subhan Shaikh Secretary, ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through The Dept. ... on 19 April, 2024 cites

Trilok Singh Pahlajsingh Rajpal And 1 ... vs Municipal Corporation For Greater ... on 16 September, 2022

10. He submits that admittedly no steps were taken for acquisition of the Petitioner's land. He, therefore, submits that the Petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the reservation stands lapsed and consequently are entitled to a Notification under Section 127 (2) of the MRTP Act. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Trilok Singh Pahlajsingh Rajpal and Others v Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Ors.1 He accordingly submits the right of the Petitioner to develop his property on account of lapsing of reservation after the expiry of the statutory 1 2022 DGLS (Bom) 2851 Page 4 of 13 19th April 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2024 19:07:46 ::: Salim Abdul Subhan Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra & Ors 912-aswp-4515-2022 J.doc period provided under the MRTP Act cannot be taken away by the Planning Authority by exercising power of revision of Development Plan under Section 38 of the MRTP Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 3 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Sadashiv Tryambak Rajebahadur And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal ... on 4 May, 2023

28. The submission of title document along with the purchase notice would render the purchase notice invalid has also been dealt with by this Court in the case of Sadashiv Tryambak Rajebahadur & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors3 which in turn referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v Dr Hakimwadi Tenants' Association4 which held that the corporation (the acquiring body) must prima facie be satisfied that the notice served was by the owner of the affected land or any person interested in the land.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants Association & Ors on 24 November, 1987

28. The submission of title document along with the purchase notice would render the purchase notice invalid has also been dealt with by this Court in the case of Sadashiv Tryambak Rajebahadur & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors3 which in turn referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v Dr Hakimwadi Tenants' Association4 which held that the corporation (the acquiring body) must prima facie be satisfied that the notice served was by the owner of the affected land or any person interested in the land.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 107 - A P Sen - Full Document

Madhukar Prabhakar Korgaonkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 21 August, 2017

12. Referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Madhukar Prabhakar Korgaonkar v State of Maharashtra and Ors,2 he submits that assuming that the purchase notice required the title documents to be attached, the Petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit the document by the SMC as held by this judgment. He further submits that, in any event, such a requirement of the title documents is merely a formality and that the SMC who is the record keeper of all the properties would necessarily have record of title. After all, if the SMC proposed the reservation, it would surely know the property placed under reservation and what land records pertained to it. Therefore, he submits that a purchase notice cannot be said to be invalid on that ground. He thus submitted that the Petition be made absolute.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document

Chetan @ Chanbassappa Sadashiv Bolkote ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Principal ... on 8 February, 2022

In our recent judgment in the case of Chetan @ Chanbassappa Sadashiv Bolkote v The State of Maharashtra5 this Court by referring to and reiterating the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court confirmed that the owner cannot be deprived of his rights to the property after the statutory period has expired when no steps to acquire the land as contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act were taken.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1