High Court of Judicature at Bombay Admits Multiple Writ Petitions and Issues Rule — Petitioners seek legal remedy against respondents in civil dispute.
25 Apr 2025...
Search Results for "Surrendered Land"
360 result(s) found
Found 360 result(s)
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Landowner's Petition for Declaration of Lapsed Reservation Under MRTP Act - Garden Reservation Lapses Due to Non-Completion of Acquisition Within Statutory Period
24 Feb 2022The petitioner, Mr. Appasaheb Gurusiddhappa Lakshetti, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Cou...
- 52
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court's Decision in Property Sale Dispute, Reversing High Court's Second Appeal - Validates Sale Deed Executed Under Power of Attorney and Awards Rendition of Accounts Against Agent. Registered Power of Attorney Cannot Be Cancelled Orally Under Registration Act, 1908, and Bona Fide Purchaser Protected Despite Agent's Breach of Internal Agreement.
28 Jan 2022The dispute originated from a suit filed by the plaintiff, a junior engineer, regarding property he owned. He entered into an oral agreement to sell t...
- 1486
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Declaration of Lapsed Reservation Under Section 127 of MRTP Act for Failure to Acquire Land Within Statutory Period. Purchase Notice Served Under Section 127(1) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Not Followed by Acquisition Within Two Years, Resulting in Deemed Lapsing of Reservation.
27 Jan 2022The petitioner, Shree Vinayak Builders & Developers, owned land admeasuring 6377.12 Sq.Mts. in Nagpur, which was reserved for a 24-meter wide DP Road ...
- 21
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Subsequent Purchaser in Land Acquisition Case — Purchase After Section 4 Notification Confers No Right to Challenge Acquisition or Invoke Section 24 of 2013 Act.
14 Oct 2019The Supreme Court considered whether a purchaser of land after issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can invoke...
- 265
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Quashes Endorsement in Urban Land Ceiling Case — Petitioner's Land Not Subject to ULC Act as Proceedings Lapsed. The court held that the land in question was not vacant land on the appointed day and the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 had lapsed, rendering the impugned endorsement without jurisdiction.
26 Sep 2018The petitioner, Miss Raksha R Acharya, claiming to be the owner of 60 cents of land in Sy.No.152/2 in Padavu village, Mangaluru Taluk, filed a writ pe...
- 41
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Municipal Corporation for Non-Compliance of Land Acquisition Order. Conditional Order Does Not Amount to Willful Disobedience Under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
12 Oct 2017The petitioner, M/s. Chinchwad Devasthan Trust, a public religious trust, owned land admeasuring about 1,05,400 sq.m at Bhosari within the jurisdictio...
- 88
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Claim for Enhanced Compensation in Land Acquisition Reference for Municipal Market and Housing. Claimant failed to prove inadequacy of compensation awarded by SLAO under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2 Mar 2015The case is a Land Acquisition Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed by the claimant, Pundalik Raghunath Mahulkar, seeki...
- 67
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Validity of MRTP Act Provisions. Court holds that Sections 49(7) and 127 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 are constitutionally valid and not ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 21A, 47 and 243(w).
29 Jan 2014The petitioners, Chalisgaon Municipal Council and a resident, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the constitution...
- 97
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Land Acquisition Challenges by Landowners in KIADB Proceedings — Preliminary Notification Under Section 28(1) of KIAD Act Not Quashed Despite Alleged Non-Compliance with Section 28(2) and Section 28(4). The court held that the petitioners were guilty of delay and laches and had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition after the final notification was issued.
12 Nov 2013The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of their lands by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development...
- 65
