Aatmaram Vithu Bhoir & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
For the reasons stated herein above, the petition is allowed in terms of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. For the reasons stated herein above, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (ii) and (iii). No order as to costs. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)
Judgment
Mr. H. B. Takke for Petitioners. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar – AGP for State – Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 25, 2010. P.C. :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGP for the State.
In the present petition the petitioners are praying for quashing of Notification under Section 10 (3) issued by the competent authority under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on the ground that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Voltas Ltd. & Anr. vs. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane & Ors. Reported in 2008(5) ALL MR 537, after the Urban Land (Ceiling and 2 Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 came into force, the said proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act stands abated since the possession of the land in question is with the petitioners.
The learned AGP does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter including the fact that the case is covered by the decision in Voltas case.
Operative part
For the reasons stated herein above, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (ii) and (iii). No order as to costs. (D. D. SINHA, J.)
(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the reasons stated herein above, the petition is allowed in terms of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Repeal Act, 1999; Urban Land Ceiling Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 25 Jun 2010. The bench was D D SINHA, MRIDULA BHATKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.