TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Time Limit for Purchase Notice Service Starts Acquisition Clock</h1> <h3>MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOMBAY Versus HAKIMWADI TENANTS (DR.) ASSON.</h3> The Court held that the six-month period under s. 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, starts from the date of service of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of the six-month period u/s 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966.2. Validity of the acquisition proceedings under s. 126(1) of the Act.3. Waiver or abandonment of rights by the trustees.4. Delay or laches in filing the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.Summary:1. Interpretation of the Six-Month Period u/s 127:The primary issue was whether the six-month period specified in s. 127 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, should be reckoned from the date of service of the purchase notice by the owner or from the date on which the requisite information was furnished by the owner. The Court held that the period of six months begins from the date of service of the purchase notice, not from the date of receipt of additional information. The Court emphasized that the Municipal Corporation had access to all necessary records and could not extend the six-month period by requesting additional information.2. Validity of the Acquisition Proceedings:The Court found that the Planning Authority (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay) failed to take necessary steps for acquisition within the six-month period after the service of the purchase notice. Consequently, the reservation of the land for a recreation ground lapsed, and the impugned notification u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was declared invalid, null, and void.3. Waiver or Abandonment of Rights:The Court rejected the contention that the trustees had waived or abandoned their rights to question the validity of the acquisition proceedings. It was held that there was no voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a right by the trustees. The trustees' willingness to sell the property was conditional and did not constitute a waiver of their rights.4. Delay or Laches in Filing the Petition:The Court dismissed the argument of inordinate delay or laches in filing the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It was held that the lapse of reservation and the invalidity of the acquisition proceedings were legal issues that could not be negated by any delay in filing the petition.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the High Court's decision that the reservation of the land had lapsed due to the failure of the Planning Authority to take timely steps for acquisition within the stipulated six-month period.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
