Search Results for "contiguous owner"

39 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 39 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Sale of Fragment to Adjacent Owner Under Section 7 of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. Sale of Fragment to Owner of Adjacent Survey Number is Valid as 'Contiguous Owner' Includes Owner of Adjacent Land.

The petitioner, Balwantrao Bhagwantrao Deshmukh, filed a writ petition challenging the sale of a fragment of land (Survey No. 7/1) by respondent No. 1...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Fragmentation Act Case — Preferential Right of Contiguous Land Owner Upheld. Sale of Fragmented Land to Non-Contiguous Purchaser Violates Section 7 of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.

The appellant, Vilas Shivmurti Munde, filed a second appeal against the dismissal of his suit for declaration and injunction. The suit sought to decla...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Land: Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount Challenges SRA's Acquisition Attempt. Protecting Property Rights and Redevelopment Plans in Mumbai's Slum Rehabilitation Dispute

Maharashtra Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) Act, where the petitioner, Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount, Mumbai, contests SRA's attempt to acquir...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Suit Based on Adverse Possession — Overrules Earlier View That Adverse Possession Can Only Be Used as Shield. Plaintiff Who Has Perfected Title by Adverse Possession Can Sue for Declaration and Protection or Recovery of Possession.

The Supreme Court addressed the question whether a person claiming title by adverse possession can maintain a suit for declaration of title and for pr...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Court Quashes State Decision to Shift Navi Mumbai Sports Complex, Reaffirms Public Interest. Judgment emphasizes the importance of accessible sports facilities, criticizes arbitrary land reallocation for commercial use, and mandates CIDCO to hand over land for the original sports complex.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the Indian Institute of Architects, Navi Mumbai Center, challenges the allocation of land originally designate...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

State Government’s Shift of Sports Complex to Rural Area Quashed. Court Orders CIDCO to Revert Land for Sports Complex Development, Emphasizing Public Interest and Transparency

The State Government's decision to relocate the Government Sports Complex from Navi Mumbai to a rural area for commercial exploitation has been critic...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Land Acquisition Reference, Enhances Compensation for Acquired Land Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Court Determined Market Value Based on Comparable Sale Instances and Potential for Development, Rejecting Government's Valuation Method.

The case is a land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arising from the acquisition of land belonging to Godrej ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Quashes Cancellation of Revenue Entry in Fragmentation Case — Sale Deed Not Void Ab Initio. Revenue Authorities Cannot Cancel Entries After 17 Years Without Proper Notice and Opportunity of Hearing Under Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.

The petitioners, Kantibhai Bhagwanbhai Narola and others, purchased agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 651 admeasuring 1 Acre 6 Gunthas and ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Hotel Liability for Theft of Guest's Car from Valet Parking Under Bailment and Infra Hospitium Principles. Insurer as Subrogee Can Maintain Consumer Complaint as Co-Complainant.

The appeal arose from a consumer complaint filed by the insurer (United India Insurance Company Ltd.) and the car owner (Respondent No. 2) against the...