Back
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, AMIT BORKAR
Santosh Madhukar Bhondve – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.
1. Heard Shri Anil Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners, Shri Chandurkar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State and Shri Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, learned Senior Advocate representing respondent No. 4-Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation.
(A) Challenge:
2. This petition has been instituted assailing the validity of an order dated 18th June 2018 passed by the District Collector, Pune whereby a piece of land admeasuring 1H 46R comprised in Gut No. 96 situate at Mauje Ravet, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune has been allotted to respondent No. 4-Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for development of a scheme of affordable housing under the Prime Minister Awas Yojana (hereinafter referred to as the PMAY).
3. The petition also challenges an order dated 13th July 2018 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Pimpri Chinchwad, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune whereby the Additional Tahasildar has directed the Divisional Office, Chinchwad that possession of the land in question shall be given to the Commissioner of respondent No. 4-Corporation and that the compliance re
The court established that the State can allot Gairan land for public purposes under the PMAY, overriding restrictions in the MLRC due to the authority granted by the MRTP Act.
The court emphasized the need for local authorities' input in land allotment decisions to ensure compliance with community needs and statutory obligations.
Section 14 of RSIR Act, 2016 provides for public notice of draft Master Development Plan and invitation of objections from public including suggestions.
The court established that higher authorities cannot exercise statutory powers of lower authorities, and actions against interim orders are illegal.
The allotment of land and delivery of possession in favor of the petitioner is a Government Grant within the meaning of the Government Grants Act, 1895. The State is not entitled to resume the land a....
The court established that misclassification of land does not negate the authority of the District Collector to allot land for public development under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
The Divisional Commissioner had the power to examine and cancel the transfer of land, and the petitioner-Society had no legal right to claim allotment of land based on the Trust's decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
