Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
Charisma Builders Ltd vs City Survey Officer And Anr on 21 December, 2021 cites

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 3 May, 2018

13. As regards the contention based on Section 37A, admittedly in the present cases the Deeds of Conveyance in favour of Shetty and Charisma were dated 28th December 2001 and 8 th September 2008 respectively. As referred to above, this 3 Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 23rd January, 2019 in Writ Petition (L) No. 165 of 2019 4 Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 31st July, 2019 in Writ Petition (L) No. 1962 of 2019 5 Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 15th April, 2019 in Writ Petition No. 2378 of 2018 PA-Nitin Jagtap 8 / 10 WPL-7184-2020.doc Court in Hindustan Unilever (supra) has already held that Section 37A, which was introduced with effect from 3 rd March 2015, will not operate retrospectively and therefore will not apply to documents of title preceding that date. Thus, ex facie and as admitted by the City Survey Officer in his Affidavits, Section 37A cannot apply to the transactions in question, and there is accordingly no requirement for permission of the Collector as contemplated therein.
Bombay High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 1 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Mangla Hospitality Limited vs The State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors on 3 May, 2018

18. According to us Mr. Cama is correct in his formulation that the City Survey Officer was required to only peruse the Conveyance Deed and ascertain whether Shetty had duly acquired rights to the subject property. It is not for the City Survey Officer to question the documents executed or raise any issue of title. As clarified in M/s. Mangla Hospitality Limited (supra) if any party raises an issue of title, that can always be agitated before the appropriate forum irrespective of any entries in the Record of Rights and mutation of Shetty's name therein. The entries in 6 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 276 (paragraphs 9 to 15) PA-Nitin Jagtap 10 / 10 WPL-7184-2020.doc the Record of Rights do not determine title. We make it clear that we have not adjudicated on Shetty's title and if any such dispute is raised by any party in future, the same will be decided on its own merits. However, no such title issue shall be raised by the City Survey Officer while determining the application for mutation filed by Shetty.
Bombay High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 2 - S C Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Shrikant R. Sankanwar And Ors. vs Krishna Balu Naukudkar on 16 January, 2003

17. As regards the objection raised in Shetty's matter on the PR Card bearing Kamalbai's name while Shetty's vendor is Arun Pathak, Mr. Cama placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Shrikant Sankanwar & Ors. v. Krishna Balu Naukudkar6. This judgment categorically holds that the revenue authorities while acting under Sections 149 and 150 are not empowered to go into questions of title but are simply required to determine whether the documents produced before the authority reveals an acquisition of rights in respect of the subject land. It is not for the City Survey Officer to go into questions of title and/or adjudicate the title and rights of the parties.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 40 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

Sanskruti Co-Operative Housing ... vs State Of Maharashtra And 3 Ors on 22 January, 2019

i. M/s. Mangla Hospitality Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.2 ii. Sanskruti Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. State of Maharashtra 1 Order of Division Bench of this Court dated 3rd May, 2018 in Writ Petition (L) No. 122 of 2018 2 Order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16th April, 2016 in Writ Petition No. 1059 of 2013 PA-Nitin Jagtap 7 / 10 WPL-7184-2020.doc & Ors.3 iii.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1