MUTHA ASSOCIATES Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2013-7-141
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
July 04,2013
Mutha Associates
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
INDRAPURI GRIHA NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD. V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]PRAKASH VASUDEV DEODHAR AND ORS. V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
TILOKCHAND AND MOTICHAND VS. H B MUNSHI [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRANATH BOSE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. COLLECTOR J N SINHA [REFERRED TO]
MINOR A PEERIAKARUPPAN SOBHA JOSEPH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
GULAM MUSTAFA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SWARAN LATA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. NANDLAL JAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. P P SHARMA IAS [REFERRED TO]
RAMJAS FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. DHIRENDRAKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. UMASHANKAR RAJABHAU [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY VS. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
AMARNATH ASHRAM TRUST SOCIETY VS. GOVERNOR OF U P [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
ABHA OSMAN TURQ VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2016-5-168] [REFERRED TO]VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-320] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRASINH ABHYASINH JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-9-243] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. CCC-HIM, CONTINENTAL HOUSE VS. SJVNL (A JOINT VENTURE OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH) [LAWS(HPH)-2020-9-94] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY PAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
V. SRIHARI RAJU VS. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2014-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
GUDDI VS. STATE OF U P THR, PRIN SECY DEPTT OF URBAN LAND CE [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-382] [REFERRED TO]
ABU MASHUD VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2022-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
MEHSANA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-662] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMSHEELA KUMARI VS. HEMANT KUMAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-6-120] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
KALENDOR CHAKMA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-7-56] [REFERRED TO]
GURDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2021-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMRAJ SINGH UMRANANGAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2021-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
BHANDARI METAL AND INDUSTRIAL WORKS VS. STATE OF M P & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-332] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATHI VS. BODHAN [LAWS(CHH)-2022-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD & ANR VS. CHANDI BAI & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-12-56] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA JATAV VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-8-376] [REFERRED TO]
VAI PALANISAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-154] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
TARLOCHAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-2023-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ MOHAN AND 36 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU SPECIAL SECY. AND 6 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-106] [REFERRED TO]
AVINASH KUMAR VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-243] [REFERRED TO]
KHADEEJA NARGEES VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-593] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVANBHAI BHARABHAI BHARWAD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. INDIRA [LAWS(KER)-2022-3-121] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTIRMOY MUKHOPADHYAY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-12-94] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER SINGH TAXAK VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
MERRY TIME CREAM FOOD PVT. LTD. VS. ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-124] [REFERRED TO]
HOUSING COMMISSIONER VS. NOOR MOHAMMAD [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD VS. NOOR MOHAMMAD [LAWS(SC)-2021-12-141] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA JATAV VS. STATE OF M. P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-4-152] [REFERRED TO]
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE DEODAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-12-39] [RELIED ON]
PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NIGADI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P ,THRU PRIN SECY , REVENUE, & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-407] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-72] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)These appeals by special leave arise out of a common judgment and Order dated 9th April, 2001 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the High Court has dismissed Writ Petition No. 670 of 1996 and upheld a notification dated 13th November, 1987 issued under Section 126(2) of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and published in the Official Gazette on 3rd December, 1987. The High Court has by the same judgment and order quashed order dated 20th May, 1998 issued under Section 40 of the Land Regulation Act directing withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings, and allowed Writ Petitions No. 3620 and 3874 of 1998. Facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions and the present appeals may be summarised as under:
(2.)Pune Municipal Corporation which is also the Planning Authority under the MRTP Act published a notification on 13th May, 1976 declaring its intention to revise the development plan for the Pune city and inviting suggestions and objections to the proposed revision. The Draft Revised Development Plan inter alia covered site No. M-145 comprising Survey No. 559/2B admeasuring 1 hectare 20 acres (approximately) which was under the orders of Director, Town Planning shown as reserved for the extension of the APMC market yard. The Draft Development Plan published in the Official Gazette on 7th October, 1982 in terms of Section 26 of the MRTP Act clearly reflected the reservation aforementioned.
(3.)The Revised Development Plan was eventually sanctioned by the State Government in which the parcel of the land aforementioned owned by late Pralhad Lokram Dodeja and his brother late Bansidhar Dodeja, Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2854 of 2002 continued to be shown as reserved for APMC with the only change that instead of extension of the APMC market yard the designated purpose shown was "Bamboo Trade and Flea Market". The sanctioned Revised Development Plan further declared APMC to be the appropriate authority for acquisition and development of the said parcel of land. What is important is that although the Planning Authority had declared its intention to prepare a Revised Development Plan as early as in May 1976 and invited objections and suggestions from the public and although the Revised Draft Plan was published under Section 26 of the Act in the Official Gazette on 7th October, 1982, no objections were filed to the same by the land owners aforementioned at any point of time. It is in that backdrop that the Appellant-Mutha Associates, for the first time, came on the scene on 8th March, 1984 when they acquired what was described as development rights over the disputed parcel of land upon payment of the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- only.
(2.)Pune Municipal Corporation which is also the Planning Authority under the MRTP Act published a notification on 13th May, 1976 declaring its intention to revise the development plan for the Pune city and inviting suggestions and objections to the proposed revision. The Draft Revised Development Plan inter alia covered site No. M-145 comprising Survey No. 559/2B admeasuring 1 hectare 20 acres (approximately) which was under the orders of Director, Town Planning shown as reserved for the extension of the APMC market yard. The Draft Development Plan published in the Official Gazette on 7th October, 1982 in terms of Section 26 of the MRTP Act clearly reflected the reservation aforementioned.
(3.)The Revised Development Plan was eventually sanctioned by the State Government in which the parcel of the land aforementioned owned by late Pralhad Lokram Dodeja and his brother late Bansidhar Dodeja, Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2854 of 2002 continued to be shown as reserved for APMC with the only change that instead of extension of the APMC market yard the designated purpose shown was "Bamboo Trade and Flea Market". The sanctioned Revised Development Plan further declared APMC to be the appropriate authority for acquisition and development of the said parcel of land. What is important is that although the Planning Authority had declared its intention to prepare a Revised Development Plan as early as in May 1976 and invited objections and suggestions from the public and although the Revised Draft Plan was published under Section 26 of the Act in the Official Gazette on 7th October, 1982, no objections were filed to the same by the land owners aforementioned at any point of time. It is in that backdrop that the Appellant-Mutha Associates, for the first time, came on the scene on 8th March, 1984 when they acquired what was described as development rights over the disputed parcel of land upon payment of the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- only.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.