Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1957Bom252; (1957)59BOMLR616
Shah, J.1. The petitioner, a resident of village Pali in the district of Thana, is a landlord owning 135 acres of Kharif lands and 70 acres of Warkas lands in the villages of Bhusegaib, Tighar, Nangurle, Venagaon, Parada, Dahigaon, Sapele, Vave, Vavaloli, Tambus and Avalas in Karjat Taluka of Kolaba district. The petitioner pay Rs. 990/-as assessment and local fund cess for the aforesaid lands. In this application the petitioner contents that Bombay Act 13 of 1956, which purports to amend the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948, is invalid. The petitioner urges that when Bill No. 34 of 1955, which subsequently was published as Act 13 of 1956, was submitted to the President for his assent, the President suggested certain alterations, but the bill was not returned to the Legislature of the State of Bombay and was published as an Act: and as the provisions of Art. 201 of the Constitution of India were contravened the Bill was not validly enacted as law. He also contends that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1986Bom308; 1986(3)BomCR163; 1986MhLJ669
Puranik, J.1. Both these applications -- Misc. Civil Application No. 37 of 1986 and Misc. Civil Application No. 36 of 1986, for review of our judgments in First Appeals Nos. 40 of 1979 and 41 of 1979, respectively, decided on 21-11-1984, can be disposed of by a common judgment, inasmuch as the facts and circumstances in both the applications are identical.2. Brief facts leading to the present applications may be narrated as follows :--The present applicants are the landowners who were the respondents in the First Appeals mentioned above. By a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Principal Act'), issued on 11-2-1970, followed by Notification under Section 6 of the Principal Act dated 18-7-1970, 3.74 Acres of land out of Survey No. 83/1 and 3.21 acres of land out of Survey No. 98, both of village Mahadula, Tahsil and Dist. Nagpur, belonging to the applicants, were put under acquisition. The Additional Special Land Acquisition Off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1989Bom339; 1989(2)BomCR445
Dharmadhikari, J.1. Since all these writ petitions involve common questions of proceedings, they were heard together and ate being disposed of but this common judgment.2. A development plan for Nasik City was sanctioned by the State Government and brought into force in the year 1959. In this plan, the lands involved in these writ petitions were reserved for road widening. Thereafter in the year 1975, the said plan was sought to be revised and a revised draft plan was published which cane to be sanctioned on the year 1980 and came into force on 29th of November 1980. In this revised plan also the properties in question were reserved for road widening. On 19th of March 1980 by a request letter to the Collector in that behalf procedure for acquisition of lands was started by the then Administrator of the Municipal Council, Nasik. In its turn the said proposal came to be forwarded BY THE Collector to the Special land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter a notification dated 31st August 1981 cam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1965Bom92; (1964)66BOMLR807; ILR1965Bom200; 1965MhLJ577
Tambe, J.(1) All these applications can be disposed of together as one of the questions released in these applications is common and that question relates to the legality and validity of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act, 1957, (Bombay Act No. VIII of 1958). It is the contention of the petitioners in all the three cases that Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act suffers from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power or authority. The facts in all legislative power or authority. The facts in all these three cases are similar. It would be sufficient if facts in one case are fully stated, and we proceed to state facts in special Civil Application No. 62 of 1963 inasmuch as that was the case is which arguments were advanced by Mr. D.T. Managalmurti and which had been adopted by Mr.Kukday and Mr. Mandiekar, Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other two cases. Mr. Kukday also had supplemented the argument of Mr. Mangalm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR546; 2008(3)BomCR408; (2008)110BOMLR951
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.1. On 21st March, 2008, we observed world 'forest' day. On 23rd March, 2008 in Maharashtra we observed 'Tukaram Beej'. That is the day on which Saint Tukaram, a Seventeeth Century Poet, regarded by many as the greatest in Marathi language, left for his Nirvana. Eachone of us has forgotten his apt remark and observation regarding a forest, the Trees and the creatures. He says:Trees, creepers and the creatures of the forest Are my kith and kin And birds that sweetly sing This is bliss! How I love being alone! Here I am beyond good and evil Commit no sinThe sky is my canopy, the earth my throne. My mind is free to dwell wherever it will. A piece of cloth, one all purpose bow! Take care of all my bodily needs.The wind tells me the time. Translated from original Marathi by Dilip Chitre, Penguin Classics, 1991.Reciting these lines today is like talking of other world. At least, the land owners and all those claiming through them think so. We rest here and say nothing mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1987Bom67; 1986(3)BomCR86; (1987)89BOMLR45
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Is the Maharashtra Act No.26 of 1976 by which the words 'the possession of such land has not been taken under sub-s.(4) of S. 21' in S. 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (the principal Act), have been deleted] unenforceable for want of President's assent is the sole point to be determined in this Letters Patent Appeal. Section 45(2) as it stood before this amendment read thus:'The State Government may suo motu or on an application made to it by an aggrieved person at any time call for the record of an enquiry or proceedings under Ss. 17 to 21 (both inclusive) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to legality and propriety of any enquiry or proceedings (or any part thereto) under those sections and may pass such order thereon as it deems fit after giving the party reasonable opportunity of being heard. Provided that nothing in this section shall entitle the State Government to call for the record of any enquiry or proceedings o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(4)BomCR799; (2007)109BOMLR677; 2007(119)ECC403; 2007LC403(Bombay)
V.C. Daga, J.1. This application is under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act' for short) seeking direction against the Tribunal to state the case and raise and refer the question of law framed in para-4 of the said application arising from paras-6 to 13 of the impugned order dated 19th August, 1999 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short). 2. At the commencement of the hearing of this application, learned Counsel for the respondent assessee raised two preliminary objections. Firstly; relating to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and try the application in question. Secondly, relating to the tenability of this application under Section 130A of the Act. It has, therefore, become necessary to first decide the preliminary objections before proceeding to hear the application on merits.FACTS:3. The respondent-importer pursuant to the show cause notice issued under Section 28(1) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1985Bom290; 1985MhLJ265
ORDER1. This is a group of writ petitions in which the petitioners, who are non-tribals, challenge the validity of S. 5A of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short, 'the Act') on the ground that it is violative of the second proviso to Art. 31A(1) of the Constitution of India (for short, 'the Constitution').2. I fact the whole Act including the Amending Act, by which S. 5A was introduced was challenged in several petitions in this Court, including these writ petitions on the ground that it infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 14 and the then existing Art. 19(1)(f) and Art. 31 which were deleted only by the Constitution (forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. The validity of the Constitution (Fortieth Amendment ) Act, 1976, by which the original Act was introduced, was also challenged on the ground that it destroys or damages the basic structure of the Constitution. All these challenges were considered and repelled by me in my ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998(2)BomCR87
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. All these petitions can be disposed off by this common judgment. Facts are by and large common. On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Zaiwalla and Mr. Chinoy have argued. All the other Advocates have adopted the arguments of these two Counsel.2. All these petitions challenge the vires of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition and Declaration as Mining Leases) Act, 1987 (hereinafter for the sake of convenience called the said Impugned Act). Facts briefly stated are as follows:3. The then Portuguese Government granted various concessions under Decrees dt. 20th September 1906. These were governed by the Portuguese Colonial Mining Laws. The then existing position is very succinctly set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Vinodkumar Shantilal Gosalia v. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal : [1982]1SCR392 . The relevant portion reads as follows:'3. During the Portuguese rule, matters relating to grant, transfer and vesting of mining rights in Goa, Daman and Diu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001BomCR(Cri)537; (2001)2BOMLR307; 2001(2)MhLj437
A. M. Khanwilkar, J.1. All these five writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge the respective detention orders passed by Shri R. H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Birhan Mumbai, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 55 of 1981) with a view to prevent the detenus therein from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. That each of the detenu in the respective writ petition has been detained on the ground that he is a dangerous person of violent character and a weapon wielding desperado indulging in terrorizing activities. The grounds of detention served on each of the detenu mention that they were indulging In criminal activities and had created a reign of terror in the minds of public in the areas of Geetanagar and areas adjoining thereto wi...
Tag this Judgment!