Back
B. P. COLABAWALLA, FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA
Riyaz Ismail Machhiwala – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. By the above Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners inter alia seek an order to direct Respondent No. 2 to refund an amount of Rs.2,66,75,750/- which, according to the Petitioner, is illegally exacted from it for obtaining a No Objection Certificate for development/sale of their land bearing Survey No. 429/1/2 and CTS No. 1069-A/ A-1 and 1069-A/B/1, aggregating to 4163 square meters, of Village Malad, Taluka Borivali, (for short “the entire land”).
3. It is the case of the Petitioners that after the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the ULC Act”), in a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry, Mumbai & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2014 (6) Mh. L.J. 829, it was held that the exemption granted under Section 20 of the ULC Act did not abate on repeal of the said Act. Being aggrieved by this decision of the Full Bench, some of the parties approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the time when the SLP was pendin
The government can only charge a one-time premium on exempted surplus vacant land under the ULC Act, not on the entire land owned by the Petitioners.
A party cannot claim a refund after accepting a government resolution and benefiting from it, as legal rights may be waived.
The absence of a provision for the return of the statutory charge under 9 (e) once paid and the lack of a legal right for the return of the premium paid under this clause were the main legal points e....
Point of law: Notifications issued from section 10(1) onwards till section 11 have not been quashed or set aside by neither the Hon’ble Tribunal, nor this Hon’ble High Court at any stage of litigatio....
Notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is issued to him to surrender such possession to the State Government, or the authorized officer or the competent autho....
The court held that disputed questions of title and possession cannot be resolved in a writ petition, and the petitioners were entitled to remain in possession of the land despite ULC proceedings.
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
