Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe, JJ
Shivdarshan Guruprasad Shukla – Appellant
Versus
Radhesham Sarjuprasad Pardeshi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. land allotment history and forfeiture proceedings summary (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties argue for possession rights and auction priority (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court cannot mandate state land auction or occupant participation (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. state resumes land for public purpose use (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: AARTI SATHE, J.): -
1. These two Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 28th September 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 11106 of 2011, disposing of the Writ Petition filed by Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 2013 i.e. the Original Petitioner on the ground that the property bearing Survey No. 110-A situated at village Saravali, Taluka Palghar, District Thane (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”) belongs to the State Government and was illegally occupied, and hence it was directed that the State Government could resume the land back and take all steps in accordance with law, irrespective of any order of occupancy in favour of Original Respondents in the said Writ Petition i.e. Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No 110 of 2013, and thus the State Government cou
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
