Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1986Bom241; 1986(1)BomCR179; 1986MhLJ87
Madhava Reddy, C.J.1. A common question of law that arises in these two writ petitions is, whether the requisition of certain buildings made under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') of 1984, more than twenty-five years ago can validly be continued? The petitioner in writ petition in writ petition No. 102 of 1985 is the owner of Block No. 11, Ganesh Building at 122 Navi Peth, Jalgaon. It was requisitioned on 18th April 1953 for the allotment to the employees of the Maharashtra State. Ever since the date of requisition it has been continuously allotted to different officers. The last such order of the allotment was made on 16th Oct. 1984 and the order of requisition was continued. Likewise the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 922 of 1985 is the owner of the building i.e. Alai Bungalow bearing House No. 1369, Kanheri Wadi, near Shivaji Garden, Nasik, which formed the subject-matter of the requisition first made on 27th June 1949. It has been allotted co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR440; 2008(3)BomCR134; 2008(2)MhLj706
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. All these appeals under Section 20 of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act (20 of 1957), herein after referred to as Coal Bearing Act, challenge the award passed by Special Tribunal, Nagpur, constituted under Section 14(2) thereof. The appeals are by land owners and they have restricted their claim in appeal only to entitlement to receive additional interest/component of 12%, solatium at 30% and interest at 9% or 15% as the case may be at par with amended provisions of Land Acquisition Act, more particularly Section 23(1A), 23(2) and Section 20 thereof read with Government Circular dated 12.5.1989 issued by Union of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Coal, New Delhi. In view of clear provisions of said Circular, entitlement of appellants to receive solatium at 30% as per its Clause (a) or interest at 9% or 15% in terms of Clause (b) is also not in dispute. However, Shri Mehadia, learned Counsel appearing for the acquiring body (Respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR419
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. On joint request of parties, both these references under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 are heard together. With consent parties are allowed to lead common evidence in both these references. The two references are interrelated only to a limited extent as would be obvious from the narration of facts in later part of this judgment.2. The basic facts pertaining to Land Acquisition Reference No. 104 of 1975 are as under :(a) The reference concerns vacant plot of land bearing C.S. No. 320 of Fort Division, Ward No. A 2173 situated at 244, Per in Nariman Street (Bazar Gate) Bombay. Prior to August 1961, a three storeyed building used to exist on the said plot of land. On 19th April 1961, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay declared that the said building was unfit for human habitation. In or about August 1961, the said building was demolished. The said building was totally dilapidated building. Since about August 1961, this plot of land was a vacant p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1984Bom325
ORDER1. A short but subtle point involved in this writ petitions is about the valldity of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amending) Act, 1976, Maharashtra Act No. 26 of 1976 (for short the Amending Act'). Briefly, the facts are that the surplus Land Determination Tribunal (for short s.L.D. T) by its order dated 23-3-1976 passed under the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short 'the ceiling Act'), held that the total holding of the petitioners is 84.61 acres and since the petitioner is entitled to hold 54 acres of land, the S.L.D.T. declared 30.61 acres of land as surplus belonging to the petitioners. The surplus land was surrendered to the State Government , which took possession of the same after the period of appeal was over.2. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur division, Nagppur, acting under Section 45(2) of the Ceiling Act, decided to revise the order of the S.L.D.T. in the ceiling case No. 389|60-A(5)|1975-76, village Id...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1977Bom99
Masodkar, J. 1. These 2661 cases have clogged the Court's corridors for considerable time, challenging the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended by the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) and (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act No. 21 of 1975) Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Lowering of Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Amendment Act, 1975 (Act No. 47 of 1975) and the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Act No. 2 of 1976).2. The petitioners raised almost Common questions and the petitions can be decided by an order indicating separate points urged in support of different petitioners' claims. It is assumed and not disputed that the petitioner in each petition is aggrieved by the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling On Holdings) Act, 1961 (Act No. 27 of 1961) as amended and in issue.3. At the outset it must be stated that in Special Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1966Bom36; (1965)67BOMLR85
Kotval, J.(1) The petitioner claims to be the owner of a piece of land and measuring 2 Gunthas 5 annas, out of S. No. 29A at Juhu. The land originally belonged to her husband, and after his death she claim to have succeeded to it be virtue of a will. The respondents have not admitted her title but the questions is hardly material of the points raised in the present petition.(2) On 2nd May 1942, this piece of land was requisitioned for a purposes of the Union under R. 75A (1) of the then existing Defense of India Rules. The notifications (Ex.1) stated that it was required for military purposes, and it has down now been explained that it was required by for the constructions of a road leadings to the military aerodrome at juhu during the to period of the emergency occasioned by the last war. The owner of the plot was receiving the usual compensation for requisitioning until 29-12-1952, when a notifications was issued under S. 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquistion of Immovable property A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR414; 2009(111)BomLR502
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Common question involved in all these Writ Petitions is, .whether State Government can levy and demand any sum as amount of nonagricultural assessment from Petitioners WCL.... Petitioner- Company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its Head Office at Nagpur and it is Central Government Undertaking in public sector as also the Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of Companies Act. It is having coal mines in western part of the nation including State of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Prayers in all Writ Petitions filed by it are to declare that orders assessing non-agricultural tax and demand notices issued consequentially are illegal. There is also similar prayer in relation to Zilla Parishad cess and Gram Panchayats cess with direction to Respondents to refund the amount already recovered from it on that account.2. In W. P. 1161/2007 challenge is to assessment orders dated 3/3/2005 and 4/3/2005 and consequential demand notices da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR1125
Shah, J.(1) (After stating facts and dealing with matters not material for reporting his Lordship proceeded): The next question, which falls to be determined, is whether the claiman's are entitled to compensation at the market rate prevailing on 28th May 1948, the date on which the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, or at the rate prevailing on 1st January 1948, and whether the claimants are entitled to the 15 per cent solatium in addition to the market value of the lands. By Bombay Act IV of 1948 the Bombay Legislature has amended section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Section 3 of Bombay Act IV of 1948 provides by the first sub-section:'Where during the continuance of this Act and land is required under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894........ for the prupose of a housing scheme the said Act shall have effect in relation to such acquisition as if- (a) in clause (f) of section 3 after the words 'such provision' the words and brackets 'and a housin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(2)MhLj323
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the reference Court, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The First Appeal No. 870 of 1991 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra whereas the First Appeal No. 817 of 1991 has been filed by the claimants.3. The claimants' land bearing Survey Nos. 40, 44/1, 39/1, 37/4C, 7/2/7/A, 37/1/A, 36/8, 37/40/68/8, 37/18 and 36/7 situated in village Taloja, Taluka Panvel, District of Thane, were sought to be acquired by a notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, hereinafter called as 'the said Act', and published in Government Gazette on 4th February, 1970. The award in exercise of powers under section 11 of the said Act was declared on 6th December 1985 thereby awarding compensation for the land of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 37- and Rs. 4/- per sq.metre. Being; dissatisfied, the claimants preferred reference applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR68; 1986MhLJ150
P.S. Shah, J.1. In these two petitions which arise out of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', questions about the validity of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Amendment Act X of 1977 which deleted Section 43D of the Act as also the interpretation of Section 6 of the said amending Act arise for consideration. Before we proceed to examine! the rival contentions it is necessary to mention the relevant facts in both the petitions which are not in dispute. Special Civil Application No. 3126 of 19752. In this case the predecessor in title of respondent Nos. 1 to 12 was the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant of two Inam lands bearing Revision Survey Nos. 387/1 admeasuring 19 gunthas and Revision Survey No. 387/2 admeasuring 36 gunthas situate within the Municipal limits of Miraj, Taluka Miraj, District Sangli. On the death of the original landlord, respondent Nos. 1 to 12 have become the owner-landlords of the sai...
Tag this Judgment!