Digi - Legal Insights

Initial basis for declaring building dangerous and ordering demolition is no longer valid and related communications cannot be upheld hence, Respondent No.2 is prohibited from threatening disconnection of water or electricity based on certain communications.

Appellants are entitled to refund, less 10% for administrative charges and regarding withheld amounts, MRTP Act allows for interest on refunds, but applying standard rate may not be appropriate given the circumstances.

Order passed by Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Authority is quashed and application at Exhibit 8 is allowed, staying proceedings until final resolution of Special Civil Suit No.78 of 2022 pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division.

In cases where no stay or prohibitory order has been issued by any Civil Court, claims for compensation and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits, including employment, will be processed after eligible landowners provide an undertaking and indemnity bond.

Petitioner cannot simultaneously contest acquisitions jurisdiction while having actively participated in related proceedings and his challenge to lack basis and considers it an afterthought, leading to its rejection.

Access granted to Respondents will pass through Petitioners land as per agreed Consent Terms, which are fair to both parties, including a Plan (Annexure ‘A’) detailing access.

Permission granted to Petitioner for diversion of 3.3561 ha. of forestland out of which 1.9656 ha. of mangrove forest land in favour of MSETCL for cutting of 847 mangroves trees within construction zone for project forming part of village Mankode, for use of non-forest purpose.

Initial basis for declaring building dangerous and ordering demolition is no longer valid and related communications cannot be upheld hence, Respondent No.2 is prohibited from threatening disconnection of water or electricity based on certain communications.

Extensions granted were unjustifiable and violated procedural mandates and as a result, court asserted its jurisdiction to challenge validity of development plan, stressing that adherence to law is a fundamental duty of executive.

Appellants are permitted to seek compensation re-determination based on High Court award, regardless of prior compensation received, as there is no statutory prohibition against it.

Respondent No. 4 is duty bound to pay compensation to Petitioner hence, Respondents are directed to acquire property of petitioner in accordance with law and initiate this process within period of four weeks.

Impugned order passed by respondent no.4-Food Safety Officer directing petitioner to stop all activities, is quashed and set aside as it is passed without any authority and power.

Exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution, Court allows Petition, mandating substitution of CTS No. 699 for CTS No. 611 in both notification and award additionally, it orders deletion of entry dated 22.07.1997 from Revenue Records regarding CTS No. 611.

Appellants claim, based on lack of notice regarding transfer, is unfounded as limitation period commenced on date of transfer hence, order of High Court holding that application was filed beyond prescribed period held proper.

Respondents, who were aware of earlier grant, sought to invoke Act after statutory period had elapsed hence, given these circumstances, orders of Authorities and High Court are set aside as illegal.

Application for re-grant of land under Section 4 of Abolition Act can only be initiated by actual landholder.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any ownership in property, failing to establish it as ancestral or Joint Hindu Undivided Family property therefore; First Appellate Courts decision is upheld.

Claimant is entitled to compensation for land at Rs. 6,400 per square meter as of 16th August 2000, statutory interest of 12% per annum on enhanced compensation from notification to possession and solatium of 30% on enhanced compensation.

NMMC is responsible for property tax collection in areas transferred to it, ending any exemptions previously granted to MIDC and its plot holders.

Petitioner has failed to provide documentation establishing ownership of disputed property and has initiated civil suit seeking recognition of ownership via adverse possession, following rejection of his regularization application.