Back
SURYA KANT, ABHAY S. OKA
Abraham Patani of Mumbai – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Surya Kant, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Bombay High Court dismissing the Appellants’ Writ Petition in which they had sought to quash a series of resolutions passed by Respondent No. 2, as well as notifications and a final award of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“LAA”) issued by Respondent Nos. 10 & 11, which cumulatively resulted in acquisition of parts of the Appellants’ property for construction of a new road.
A. FACTS
3. The genesis and course of the present dispute spans several decades and includes one prior round of litigation before this Court. The crux of the matter arises from the opposition by Appellants to the construction of a road through their property by Respondent No. 2, the Municipal Corporation of Mumbai. The property in question was acquired by the Appellants in 1959, and a building known as the “INGA Building” was constructed on it in 1965.
4. The possibility of having a road through the Appellants’ land was floated initially in a Development Plan (“DP”) of 1976. After this, the road was realigned in 1984 in order to secure smooth passage through Appellants’ land. Appellants
(1) Acquisition of land – Under no circumstances should rights of individual citizens be trodden upon arbitrarily and any curtailment of them must be scrutinized with utmost care – At the same time, ....
The provisions S.90 and S.91 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act provide alternative modes for land acquisition, and prior attempts to negotiate are not conditions precedent for compulsory acquis....
Public land designated for a specific purpose cannot be acquired if re-designated for another use, and inaction by claimants can result in dismissal of subsequent challenges based on laches.
Even though there is no period of limitation for filing petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner should approach the Court without loss of time and if there is delay, t....
Reservation of land under the MRTP Act lapses if the land is not acquired within ten years from the date of publication of the final Development Plan and no declaration under Section 19 of the Act of....
Since the property is not designated as compulsorily acquired land, there is no requirement for the Government to take the appropriate action envisaged under section 67 of the Act, 2016 can never be ....
The invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is justified when the government demonstrates a pressing need, and such subjective satisfaction is generally n....
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
