Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.42 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 127 in The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Narayanrao Jagobaji Gawande Pub.Trust vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 February, 2016
In our humble opinion, the cases of Narayanrao
Jagobaji Gowande Public Trust (supra) and Ujwal
Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (supra) would have no
application to the facts of the case, for the reason that in
those cases, the condition of the appellant- Trust transferring
the land as agreed in the agreement was not relaxed; it stayed
very much there in the development agreement, unlike the
present case. In the present case, the very basis of the
condition of transferring the subject lands free of cost to the
NIT was done away with, rather removed from the
exemption orders and the subject lands were permitted to be
developed for the public purpose of Primary School by the
original owners by themselves and were even released from
the applicability of the provisions of the ULC Act upon
payment of consideration of the value of the subject lands,
Rs.25,762/- and Rs.57,944/- respectively, by the original
owners, in terms of the orders dated 2-3-2005 and
30-8-2007 passed by the State Government and the
Competent Authority. This transaction between the original
owners and the State Government only shows that what were
to be the surplus lands as per the provisions of the ULC Act
and what were considered to be vested in the State
Government were restored for their ownership to the original
31 wp3354.20.odt
owners, thereby entitling them to develop the lands for
public purpose or dispose them of along with the reservation
at their freewill. It also shows that the original owners were
under no obligation to transfer the subject lands to the
authorities free of cost with the original owners having
already paid the value of the land to the Government for
their acquiring back by them. Against this background, if the
original owners were to transfer the subject lands free of cost
to the NIT, it would have amounted to compulsory
acquisition of the lands without paying any compensation to
the original owners, which would have been clearly in
violation of the provisions contained in Section 126 of the
MRTP Act. We, therefore, find that the respondent Nos.1
and 2 would get no assistance from the above-referred cases.
The Companies Act, 1956
T.Lakshmipathi & Ors vs P.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors on 31 March, 2003
In Union of India
and another Vs. International Trading Co. and another
reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437, the Apex Court held that
basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the
State and non-arbitrariness in essence. It further held
(Para 15) that State action would be justifiable only when the
State has acted validly for a discernible reason, not
whimsically for any ulterior purpose. It observed that the
meaning and true import of concept of arbitrariness is more
easily visualized than precisely defined. It emphasised that
the basic and obvious test to apply is to see whether there is
any discernible principle emerging from the impugned
action, and if so, does it really satisfy the test of
reasonableness or not. In the present case, there is neither
any tangible principle behind denial of ownership of
petitioner of the subject lands by the respondent Nos.1 and 2
nor is their any reasonableness in their selective obstinacy
towards the petitioner while it is their chosen acquiescence
towards the identically placed original owners. This is not
reasonableness; nor fair play but arbitrariness, whimsy in
State action.
Ujwal Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 10 June, 2019
In our humble opinion, the cases of Narayanrao
Jagobaji Gowande Public Trust (supra) and Ujwal
Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (supra) would have no
application to the facts of the case, for the reason that in
those cases, the condition of the appellant- Trust transferring
the land as agreed in the agreement was not relaxed; it stayed
very much there in the development agreement, unlike the
present case. In the present case, the very basis of the
condition of transferring the subject lands free of cost to the
NIT was done away with, rather removed from the
exemption orders and the subject lands were permitted to be
developed for the public purpose of Primary School by the
original owners by themselves and were even released from
the applicability of the provisions of the ULC Act upon
payment of consideration of the value of the subject lands,
Rs.25,762/- and Rs.57,944/- respectively, by the original
owners, in terms of the orders dated 2-3-2005 and
30-8-2007 passed by the State Government and the
Competent Authority. This transaction between the original
owners and the State Government only shows that what were
to be the surplus lands as per the provisions of the ULC Act
and what were considered to be vested in the State
Government were restored for their ownership to the original
31 wp3354.20.odt
owners, thereby entitling them to develop the lands for
public purpose or dispose them of along with the reservation
at their freewill. It also shows that the original owners were
under no obligation to transfer the subject lands to the
authorities free of cost with the original owners having
already paid the value of the land to the Government for
their acquiring back by them. Against this background, if the
original owners were to transfer the subject lands free of cost
to the NIT, it would have amounted to compulsory
acquisition of the lands without paying any compensation to
the original owners, which would have been clearly in
violation of the provisions contained in Section 126 of the
MRTP Act. We, therefore, find that the respondent Nos.1
and 2 would get no assistance from the above-referred cases.
1