SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 1044

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH & ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
MANEESH BAWA AND ORS. - Appellants
VERSUS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (7), BOMBAY AND ANR. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11577 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5226 OF 2016]
Decided On : 02-12-2016

The court upheld the validity of the Notification under Section 126 of the MRTP Act and directed the appellants to follow the 'Accommodation Reservation Policy' for further proceedings.

Headnote:

MRTP Act - Notification under Section 126 - The court upheld the Notification dated 04.03.1987 under Sub-Section 4 of Section 126 of the MRTP Act and directed the appellants to apply in terms of the 'Accommodation Reservation Policy' dated 02.05.2016 for further proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants challenged the Notification dated 04.03.1987 under Sub-Section 4 of Section 126 of the MRTP Act and sought its quashing.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the Notification and directed the appellants to apply in terms of the 'Accommodation Reservation Policy' dated 02.05.2016 for further proceedings. The court also directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property.

Issues: Notification under Section 126 of the MRTP Act, applicability of the 'Accommodation Reservation Policy', and maintenance of status quo over the disputed property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Notification under Section 126 of the MRTP Act was valid and directed the appellants to follow the 'Accommodation Reservation Policy' for further proceedings.

Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with no costs, and the court upheld the Notification under Section 126 of the MRTP Act, directing the appellants to apply in terms of the 'Accommodation Reservation Policy' for further proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are aggrieved since the Notification dated 04.03.1987 under Sub-Section 4 of Section 126 of the MRTP Act was not quashed. It was also made clear that the acquisition would be proceeded further, treating the same as under Sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. When the matter came up before us, while issuing notice, the following order was passed :-

"Issue notice.

Ms. Suchitra Atul Chitale, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the new scheme, they are prepared to surrender 70% of the land so that they can retain 30%. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents seeks time to get further instruction. Post after two weeks.

The parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property."

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, on instruction, submits that there is a Scheme available, known as the 'Accommodation Reservation Policy' dated 02.05.2016.

5. Therefore, it is for the appellants to apply in terms of the said Scheme/Policy dated 02.05.2016. Orders in accordance with law and as per the Policy would be passed by the competent authority within a period of two months thereafter.

6. We make it clear that the impugned order passed by the High Court shall not stand in the way of the competent authority passing orders, as above.

7. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.

No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top