Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.36 seconds)Section 1 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 2 in The Right to Information Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Sunil Shamrao Patil And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 11 August, 2022
This view has
been further reiterated in the decision of this Court in Sunil
Shamrao Patil & Anr. (supra), which squarely applies to the
present case, which reads thus:
Section 35 in Indian Forest Act, 1927 [Entire Act]
Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 February, 2009
In view of the various judicial pronouncements right
Rushikesh
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2026 09:07:09 :::
18/18 912 WP.16682.2025.odt
from Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited &
Anr., (supra), it is time and again held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as well as this Court, that proof of issuance of notice is
necessary before issuing notification under Section 35(1),
which is undoubtedly absent in the present case. Hence, we
have no hesitation in holding that, the Mutation Entry No.
1180 in respect of the lands owned by the Petitioners in
Survey No. 1 to 90 of Mulgaon, Tal Ambernath, Dist Thane,
which is taken on the basis of the notice issued under Section
35(3) of MPFA Act, 1975 deserves to be set aside.
1