Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR41; 2009(1)BomCR275; (2008)110BOMLR2696
D.D. Sinha, J.1. Rule made returnable forthwith by the consent of Mr.C.V.Kale, Counsel for Petitioner, Mr.S.V.Akolkar, Adv. for Intervenor and Mrs.Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is Ex-MLA and a social worker. The impugned Government Resolutions have adversely affected large number of Housing Schemes and it will also affect large number of individual flat owners in 3 several such Schemes. It is next to impossible to acquire land in the vicinity and to construct and hand over 5 % built up area in today's rate and sell it to Government nominees at Rs. 400/- per square feet of the built-up area, which is the Government pre-determined rate for Government quota flats. The instant petition aims at protecting large number of people, which includes buyers of the apartments, from the undue hardship that may ensue due to implementation of the impugned Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are, in these batch of cases, called upon to decide the question whether the deemed vesting of surplus land under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [for short ‘the Act’] would amount to taking de facto possession depriving the land holders of the benefit of the saving Clause under Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 [for short ‘the Repeal Act’].FACTS:3. Hari Ram, respondent herein, had filed a statement on 28.9.1976 giving details of the vacant land he was holding in excess of ceiling limit prescribed under the Act, as provided under Section 6 of the Act. The competent authority under the Act surveyed the land and the respondent was served with a draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Act on 13.5.1981, calling for objection to the draft statement within thirty days. No objection was preferred by the respondent and it was found that he was holding ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
The family of the ancestors of the petitioners own an extent of Acs.3.37 guntas of land in Survey Nos.551 and 552 of Uppal Bagath, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In the partition, the branch of the petitioners got an extent of Ac.0.39 guntas towards one-fourth share. The land is within the urban agglomeration of Hyderabad. Declarations were submitted under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) by the respective branches. The declarations submitted by the petitioners were numbered as G2/8954/76 and G2/73/77. While the declarations submitted by the other branches were processed and some extents were declared as being in excess, of ceiling limits, those filed by the petitioners did not cross the stage of Section 8 (3), before the Act came to be repealed. The land of the petitioners along with that of many others was proposed to be acquired by Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, respondent No.2 herein, for Musi River...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [2009]147CompCas243(Guj)
K.A. Puj, J. 1. The Official Liquidator has filed this report as well as Company Application and since common issue is involved in both the matters, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. In OLR No. 12 of 2006, the Official Liquidator has prayed for ratification of his action in impleading the Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Industries and Mines Department, Gandhinagar as party - respondent in the present report. He has also prayed for confirmation of sale of land admeasuring approximately 27,741 Sq. Mts. situated at Survey Nos. 39 & 41, Town Planning Scheme No. 14, Final Plot No. 24 of Dariapur - Kazipur, Ahmedabad, except records of the Company in liquidation, in favour of Shri Nilesh Jhalani, Shriram Bhavan, Goshala Road, Ratlam, M.P. for Rs. 5.55 Crores on the terms and conditions specified in the tender document produced at Annexure F to his report. He has also prayed for ratification of his action of making payment to the Adve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(3)BomCR78; (2008)110BOMLR531; [2008]114CompCas144(Bom); (2008)3CompLJ61(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The Reference for our consideration is:Whether an Industrial Company which has made a reference under Section 15 of Sick Industrial Companies Act, can during the pendency of such reference, apply to this Court for sanctioning a scheme of arrangement or compromise with its creditors and shareholders and whether this Court can take cognizance of such an application during the pendency of the reference and pass necessary orders thereon as are permissible in law.2. The Company, Ashok Organic Industries Limited made a reference to the Board of Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'SICA'. They were informed by letter dated 15th May, 2002 that the case was registered under No. 195/02. During the pendency of these proceedings before BIFR, the Company resolved on 9th December, 2005 that subject to the sanction of the appropriate Court as may be required unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR4134; 2001(1)KarLJ364
ORDERThese petitions involving common questions of facts and law are heard together by consent and disposed of by this common order. For convenience, the following abbreviations are used in this order: 'BDA' for Bangalore Development Authority; 'BDA Act' for the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976; 'Amendment Act' for the Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Karnataka Act 1 of 2000); and 'Repealing Ordinance' for the Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) (Repealing) Ordinance, 2000 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 4 of 2000); 'KMC Act' for Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976; 'Planning Act' for Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; 'Public Premises Act' for Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974; and 'Regularisation Act' for Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991.1.1 These petitions have been heard with several other batches relating to other layouts of BDA, the common facto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)3GLR2520
D.C. Srivastava, J.1. These two interconnected writ petitions are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.2. Special Civil Application No. 7404 of 1999 has been filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the order dated 10-12-1998 Annexure-'B' passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal. In this petition, the averments are that the landholder Lalitaben Bhikhabhai had filled up Form under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was scrutinized by the competent authority, and after giving opportunity of hearing, through its order dated 12-10-1984, the competent authority declared 2963 sq. metres of vacant land as surplus land vide Annexure-'A'. Proceedings under Sections 10(1) and 10(5) of the Act were followed and possession of excess vacant land was taken by the petitioner on 14-11-1984. Possession was given voluntarily by the respondents. Compensation was awarded under Section 11 of the Act, which was received by the land-holder. The excess land w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This writ petition is one more in the series of matters where jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked not by rightful owners but builders and developers, to reclaim the vacant lands in excess of ceiling limits, which have already vested in the State. The surplus land holders and owners of these lands very well know that their fate is sealed for they are divested of their right, title and interest in these lands by due process of law. However, they are propped up by builders and developers with ulterior motives to file such petitions by relying on the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Principal Act) in the State of Maharashtra with effect from 29th November, 2007. Though physical possession of these lands is with the State and not challenged by the owners and surplus vacant land holders at the relevant time, now they raise such challenge being financed by builders and developers. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR4036; 2004(6)KarLJ23
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J. Lot of facts are involved in this case. However, I narrate here below the relevant facts just required for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition.1. That the father of respondents No. 4 to 8, one Sri Buddappa @ Budda Reddy had filed a declaration under Section 61 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, henceforth in brief referred to as U.L.C. Act.That the respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner had taken up the declaration filed by the above said Budda Reddy and held that he was holding an extent of 14,879 sq. mts. in Sy.No. 167/4, 172/1, 172/3 of Kothnur Village, Bangalore South Taluk, as an excess land beyond the ceiling limit and he therefore ordered to acquire the same by issue of notification under Section 10(1) of the U.L.C. Act (Henceforth for convenience referred to as 'subject land').2. That the Respondent No. 1 - State had issued preliminary notification and final notification for acquisition of the 'subject land' situated in Sy.No. 172/3 of Kothanur V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The Honourable the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench in order to resolve a conflict between the conflicting views which have been expressed by two Division Benches of this Court. In our detailed order dated 24th April, 2014 we noticed that conflict and by consent of parties we formulated the questions which have to be answered by us. They read as under:- (1) Does Section 3(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 save the orders of exemption including all terms and conditions thereof passed under Section 20(1) of the Principal Act, namely, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and all actions taken there-under? (2) Whether, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 r/w Section 7 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 apply to the repeal of the Principal Act by the Repealing Act, 1999? (3) Whether in view ...
Tag this Judgment!