Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Manish Pitale, Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ
Zainulabedin Abdul Razzak Kokni – Appellant
Versus
Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Nashik – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ulc proceedings history: excess land declared, notifications issued. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. no section 10(5) notice to petitioners; proceedings abated. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. possession taken; disputed facts require civil suit. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. key issue: section 10(5) compliance determines abatement. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. mandatory section 10(5) notice for possession pre-repeal. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. documents show notice, possession; prior writ distinguished. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. genuine disputed facts; writ court relegates to suit. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 8. petition dismissed; liberty for civil suit. (Para 46 , 47) |
ORDER: (Per Manish Pitale, J)
1. The petitioners claim that proceedings in respect of the subject lands under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ULC Act’) abated and that they are entitled to benefit of Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ULC Repeal Act’). According to the petitioners, since possession of the subject lands was never take
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
