WRIT PETITION NO.3602 OF 2022
20 Jun 2025...
Search Results for "Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966"
679 result(s) found
Found 679 result(s)
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Management's Writ Petition Challenging Education Officer's Reinstatement Order. The Court held that the Education Officer lacked jurisdiction to order reinstatement without prior approval of the Deputy Director under Section 5 of the MEPS Act, 1977.
25 Aug 2022The petitioner, Rahuri Education Society, through its Secretary, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30-06-2018 passed by the Education O...
- 41
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for De-reservation of Land Under MRTP Act — Failure to Acquire Within Ten Years. Petitioners entitled to de-reservation of land reserved for public purpose as acquisition proceedings were not completed within the statutory period under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
12 Jan 2022The petitioners, legal heirs of the original owner Madhavrao Bhagwatrao Rajebahadur, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of In...
- 64
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Reference by Land Acquisition Officer in Apportionment Dispute Under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Claimant No. 1 Held Entitled to Entire Compensation as Owner of Acquired Land.
24 Feb 2005The Land Acquisition Officer filed a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking determination of apportionment of compensat...
- 84
High Court
High Court Dismisses Criminal Writ Petition Challenging Detention Order Under MPDA Act as Grounds Were Identical to Already Dismissed Companion Case. Detention order dated 19.8.2004, resting on a complaint under Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and in-camera statements, was upheld as no separate challenge was made.
14 Jun 2005The petition arose from a preventive detention order dated 19.8.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, under the Maharashtra Preven...
- 33
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Land Acquisition Under MRTP Act — Upholds Acquisition for Public Purpose Despite Delay. The court held that the acquisition of land for a public purpose under the MRTP Act cannot be challenged after a long delay and that the petitioner failed to establish any violation of statutory provisions.
30 Nov -0001The petitioner, Udhav Bhanudas Gujar, filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of his land by the respondents under the Maharashtra Regional ...
- 91
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge to Slum Acquisition Proceedings Based on Adverse Possession Claim. Petitioners' claim of adverse possession not established; acquisition under Maharashtra Slum Areas Act upheld.
13 Dec 2006The petitioners, claiming adverse possession, challenged the acquisition proceedings under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Rede...
- 136
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Land Acquisition for Primary School — Resolution to Abandon Acquisition of Adjoining Land Does Not Extend to Petitioner's Land. The court held that a Municipal Council's resolution to abandon acquisition of Survey No. 34/1 and demand refund of the entire amount does not imply abandonment of acquisition of Survey No. 34/3, as the resolution specifically mentions only Survey No. 34/1.
17 Oct 2011The petitioners, owners of Survey No. 34/3 in Chandrapur, challenged the acquisition of their land under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional & Tow...
- 135
High Court
Bombay High Court Directs Municipal Corporation to Consider Regularization Applications Before Demolition in Mall Mezzanine Case. Occupants of Mall Entitled to Submit Regularization Application Under Section 53(3) of MRTP Act Due to Delayed Action by Corporation.
23 Sep 2014The petitioners, occupants of a mall called 'Dreams the Mall' in Bhandup-West, challenged a notice issued under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regio...
- 244
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Redevelopment Scheme Under DCR 33(7) — Consents Verified and Video Recorded. Tenants Who Refused to Vacate Were Issued Notices Under Section 95A of MHADA Act, 1976; Court Found No Merit in Grievance.
23 Jun 2011The ten petitioners, occupants of a cessed structure on CS 1101, Khandia Street, Byculla, Mumbai, challenged a redevelopment scheme sanctioned by MHAD...
- 107
