Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.24 seconds)

Satish Soma Bhole And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 23 March, 2016

Judgment wp3706.20 1 14 the MRTP Act. The only objections raised by the respondents is that the notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act was issued by earlier owners i.e. Shivchand Madanlal Agrawal and Ginnibai Vishvanath Agrawal and not by the petitioner No.2. As to another objection raised that the petitioner No.2 could not claim de-reservation on the basis of the said notice for which he was not party, learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly relied on a reported judgment of this court in the case of Satish Soma Bhole vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported cited supra. This Court had held that the notice issued by the predecessor-in-title would not disentitle the purchaser of the property to seek the benefit of the provisions of Section 127 of the MRTP Act. It is held in the judgment that once the notice is issued under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the time would not stop running by the sale of the property by the owner.
1