IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Writ Petition No. 9222 of 2007
Decided On: 12.03.2008
Writ Petition No. 9222 of 2007
Decided On: 12.03.2008
Ajay Vasant Gawand and Ors……………. Appellants
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors……………. Respondent
Hon'ble Judges: Patel J.N. and Mhatre Nishita, JJ.
Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act provides that if any land which is reserved for any purpose specified in the development plan is not acquired by agreement within 10 years from the date on which the final development plan comes into force, the owner or a person interested in the land may serve the notice on the development authority. If the land is not acquired by the authority or no steps are commenced for its acquisition within six months from the date of the service of such notice, the land shall be deemed to be released from the reservation and shall become available to the owner for the purposes of development as permissible in the case of the adjacent land in the development plan.
Hon'ble Judges: Patel J.N. and Mhatre Nishita, JJ.
Section 127 of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act provides that if any land which is reserved for any purpose specified in the development plan is not acquired by agreement within 10 years from the date on which the final development plan comes into force, the owner or a person interested in the land may serve the notice on the development authority. If the land is not acquired by the authority or no steps are commenced for its acquisition within six months from the date of the service of such notice, the land shall be deemed to be released from the reservation and shall become available to the owner for the purposes of development as permissible in the case of the adjacent land in the development plan.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Writ Petition No. 4410 of 1991
Decided On: 17.10.2008
Shri Datatrya Ganpat Gorde …………..Petitioner
Vs.
Gaourihar Mahadeo Gorde……………. Respondent
Hon'ble Judges:
V.C. Gaga, J
If any Land is purchased by a Tenant U/s 32 G of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act., then it is necessary to obtain prior permission U/s 43 of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, for further sale of said land.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Aurangabad Bench
Writ Petition No. 2392of 1996
Decided On: 30.06.2008
Hon'ble Judges:
V.C. Gaga, J
If any Land is purchased by a Tenant U/s 32 G of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act., then it is necessary to obtain prior permission U/s 43 of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, for further sale of said land.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Aurangabad Bench
Writ Petition No. 2392of 1996
Decided On: 30.06.2008
Gopinath Ganesh Dadkar and Otrs. …………………..Petitioner
Vs.
Rabhaji Gangaram Naikwadi and 1 Oth.……………. Respondent
Hon'ble Judges:
P.R.Borkar, J
If the Tenenat is in actual possession of Land then there will be no Surrender of Tenancy After ‘Tiller’s Day i.e.01/04/1957.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Nagpur Bench
Writ Petition No. 2921 of 2006
Decided On: 24.10.2008
Hon'ble Judges:
P.R.Borkar, J
If the Tenenat is in actual possession of Land then there will be no Surrender of Tenancy After ‘Tiller’s Day i.e.01/04/1957.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Nagpur Bench
Writ Petition No. 2921 of 2006
Decided On: 24.10.2008
Trimbakrao Mugutrao Deshmukh ………….Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and 1 Oth.……………. Respondent
Hon'ble Judges:
K.J.Rohee, J
The Petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman. Some Land was granted to him by State Government. On 09.01.1994 the Petitioner applied to the Government i.e. the Respondent for the permission to sale the said land. After many reminders there was no any communication from the side of the Respondent. On 01.10.2003 the petitioner received a communication from Respondent i.e. State Government stating that as per changed Rules (on 19.10.2001) the person who wants to sale Government Granted Land have to pay 50 % of the Market Value to the Government.
Hon'ble Judges:
K.J.Rohee, J
The Petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman. Some Land was granted to him by State Government. On 09.01.1994 the Petitioner applied to the Government i.e. the Respondent for the permission to sale the said land. After many reminders there was no any communication from the side of the Respondent. On 01.10.2003 the petitioner received a communication from Respondent i.e. State Government stating that as per changed Rules (on 19.10.2001) the person who wants to sale Government Granted Land have to pay 50 % of the Market Value to the Government.
The Petitioner brought to the notice of the Respondent the Rue was changed on 19.10.2001 and it would not apply to his case as he had applied for the permission to sell his land prior to 19.10.2001. Petition was allowed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Writ Petition No. 8910 of 2007
Decided On: 24.03.2008
Anilkumar Gokuldas Rai……………. Appellants
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and 1 oth.……………. Respondent
Hon'ble Judges: D.B. Bhosale J.
The Petitioner was owner of a property in Manmad, Nashik. The property was already assed to N.A. (Residential) purpose under the order passed way back in the year of 1933.
In 1998 the Petitioner submitted Plans for construction of a Hotel and Shopping Complex, accordingly a Commencement Certificate was granted by concern authority on 07.08.19998.
In 2003 the Petitioner applied for conversion of N.A. Residential Purpose to N.A. Commercial use.
Admittedly the construction was started in 1998.
The concern authority levied forty times penalty on the Petitioner for Unauthorized Commercial use of the and demanded Rs.1,81,280/- as Penalty.
Argument on behalf of the Petitioner was that just construction is started but actual commercial use is not stated.
Petition Dismissed.
Hon'ble Judges: D.B. Bhosale J.
The Petitioner was owner of a property in Manmad, Nashik. The property was already assed to N.A. (Residential) purpose under the order passed way back in the year of 1933.
In 1998 the Petitioner submitted Plans for construction of a Hotel and Shopping Complex, accordingly a Commencement Certificate was granted by concern authority on 07.08.19998.
In 2003 the Petitioner applied for conversion of N.A. Residential Purpose to N.A. Commercial use.
Admittedly the construction was started in 1998.
The concern authority levied forty times penalty on the Petitioner for Unauthorized Commercial use of the and demanded Rs.1,81,280/- as Penalty.
Argument on behalf of the Petitioner was that just construction is started but actual commercial use is not stated.
Petition Dismissed.
