Digi - Legal Insights

Appellants' agricultural lands are classified as irrigated hence, market value of acquired lands is established at Rs. 1,199 per Are, entitling claimants to compensation at that rate.

Claimants are entitled to statutory benefits, including rental compensation for time deprived of land income hence, Reference Courts conclusions were determined incorrect, warranting modifications to initial awards.

Petitioners' claim for larger commercial structures is unfounded, as they do not own land and have exceeded originally allotted space.

Although Sale-deed was executed on 11/07/2007, sale transaction remains incomplete without registration, making document not valid title evidence.

MMC has made contradictory statements about nature of dispute and its responsibility to address unauthorized constructions, failing to fulfill its legal obligations despite acknowledging their illegality hence, MMC is directed to demolish illegal constructions.

Plaintiffs' investment motivations contrasted with Defendant No. 1s familys reliance on agricultural land, influencing hardship assessment and Courts' ruling against Plaintiffs.

Courts were justified in dismissing Appellants suit for declaration and injunction, as Appellants title to property was not extinguished through acquisition or valid transfer agreement to Respondents as defined by Act.

Society is not subject to provisions of Maharashtra Shops Act or PG Act, leading to conclusion that proceedings initiated by Respondent under relevant labor laws are not maintainable and should be dismissed.

Interim order allowing Notice of Motions filed by Plaintiffs quashed however, no coercive action will be taken against Plaintiffs' structures until conclusion of suit proceedings, ensuring their protection under law.

Court would likely exercise discretion to prevent eviction without proper legal processes, allowing MCGM to seek possession through appropriate legal channels.

Impugned order did not reveal any errors justifying interference under Article 226 of Constitution; thus, deemed conveyance order is upheld as lawful.

Court cannot rewrite policy or compel MIDC to abandon transparent online system in favour of an ad hoc, offline seniority list which has no legal sanction.

There was insufficient legal connection between parties involved, as Competent Authority issued a Corrigendum that exceeded its jurisdiction, influencing land title improperly hence, impugned order issuing Corrigendum must be quashed.

Petitioners’ claim faced significant delays spanning decades without satisfactory explanation hence, no relief can be granted to Petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution.

Delay in compensation payments, amounting to over three decades, weakens any arguments regarding delay and laches hence, Respondents ought to initiate process for acquisition of piece of land to determine and pay compensation to Petitioners under Act.

Impugned order rejecting application under Section 28-A of Act for want of certified copy and also holding barred by limitation set aside and matter remitted back to Respondent No.2 to decide application under Section 28A of Act.

State Government directed to notify lapsing of reservation by an order to be published in Official Gazette as per the requirement of Section 127(2) of Act.

Provision of Section 30A was found to comply with Article 14, as it does not exhibit discriminatory practices and takes into account public health and safety in permitting process hence, legislative framework governing these lands was deemed constitutionally valid and reasonable.

Court reinforced necessity of upholding integrity of Civil Courts decree concerning this land, despite withdrawal of prior petitions, maintaining that proceedings under Section 54 of Code should not delay execution of partition decree for Survey No.80/3.

Impugned judgment is modified to extend that Respondent nos.1 and 2-claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,92,000/- instead of Rs.5 lakh for acquisition of land, with all statutory benefits.