Writ Petition No. 5151 of 2005. Case: Estate Cooperative Housing Society Limited, a Cooperative Society, duly Registered under the M.C.S. Act, 1960 through its Secretary, Rajendra Bunage Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary to the Ministry of Urban Development Department. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition No. 5151 of 2005
CounselFor Appellant: G.S. Godbole, Adv. and For Respondents: C.R. Sonawane, AGP
JudgesP.B. Majmudar and R.M. Savant, JJ.
IssueUrban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Sections 6(1), 8(4), 10(1), 10(3), 20 and 34; Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
Judgement DateJune 18, 2010
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

R.M. Savant, J.

  1. The lands in question in the instant Petition were of the ownership of one Khatib family. Out of the large area owned by the said Khatib family the land admeasuring 14 H 64 R from out of Survey No. 750 was allowed to be transferred by the Collector to the Petitioners by an order dated 31st December 1993 on payment of Nazrana. The said Nazrana was paid by the Petitioners through the developer. The branches of the said Khatib family on the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevities sake referred to as "the said Act") having come into force, filed statements under Section 6(1) of the said Act. In respect of holding of Gulam Gaus Khatib an order came to be passed under Section 8(4) of the said Act. In so far as holding of Gulam Jauddin Khatib is concerned, an order under Section 8(4) of the said Act came to be passed, that the said Gulam did not hold any excess vacant land and so far as branch of Mohammed Hasansaheb Khatib is concerned, an area admeasuring 3956.99 sq.mtr from out of Survey No. 751 (Pt.) declared as excess vacant land vide order dated 1st November 1993. In so far as branch of Peersaheb Abdul Rehman Khatib is concerned, an order came to be passed under Section 8(4) of the said Act that the said branch did not hold any excess vacant land. There are various intervening events which had taken place, which in our view, are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the above petition. In so far as proceedings under UlC Act are concerned, the said orders under Section 8(4) came to be modified by the fresh orders passed by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority recomputing the case of the excess vacant lands. This was done on 11th January 1995, 13th June 1995 and 21st January 1998 and 25th May 1998 in respect of the lands held by the various branches of the said Khatib family.

  2. It is the case of the Petitioners that they purchased various portions of the lands from out of the said Survey Nos. 750, 751 and 755 from the original owners by the registered sale deeds pursuant to which the Petitioners were put in possession. The said purchases, according to the Petitioners were effected between 1992 and 1998. It is the case of the Petitioners that they had paid total consideration of 6,63,18,741.98 from time to time to the said land owners. It would be relevant to mention at this stage that the substantial portion of the land from the said Survey Nos. 750, 751 and 755 were...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT