Pune Municipal Corporation VS. State Of Maharashtra & Ors

Extract

---

Pune Municipal Corporation VS. State Of Maharashtra & Ors

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1084 of 2006

PETITIONER: PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/2007

BENCH: C.K. THAKKER & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Hon. C.K. THAKKER, J.

This appeal is filed by the Pune Municipal Corporation ('Corporation' for short) against the judgment and order dated July 8, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 643 of 1996. By the said order, the High Court confirmed the order passed by the State of Maharashtra on June 21, 1995 in purported exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') holding that no sufficient opportunity had been given to the land-owners before declaring their land to be excess and vacant land under the Act.

The case has a checkered history and to appreciate rival contentions raised by the parties in their proper perspective, it would be appropriate to bear in mind the facts.

Pranlal Zaverchand Doshi (since deceased) who has been represented through his heirs and legal representatives and Chandravadan Pranlal Doshi were owners of certain lands situate at village Mouje Parvati, Taluka Haveli, District Pune in the State of Maharashtra.

On February 17, 1976, the Act came into force in the State of Maharashtra. The owners of the land filed a statement under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act in the prescribed form on August 14, 1976. The Competent Authority, Pune Urban Agglomeration prepared draft statement under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act.

The draft statement was sought to be served in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act. An order was passed by the Competent Authority on April 20, 1977 under sub- section (4) of Section 8 of the Act observing therein that a notice under Section 8(3) of the Act was issued and sent to the declarant by Registered A.D. but it was received back 'undelivered'. It was also observed that the notice was prope...

See the full content of this document

---