0

Bombay HC dismisses the order set by appellate authority as the same person rejected the developer’s application for reconstruction

Blog , , ,

TITLE : S.K Realty v State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Milind N Jadhav

DATE :  2nd January 2024

CITATION : WP No 13458 of 2023

FACTS

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Appellate authority. The order from the lower authority was that the plots should be treated as separate units to be certified as tenants and grant revised NOC for redevelopment of the property. The order was alleged to have seriously breached the principles of natural justice.

LAWS INVOLVED

The schedule 3 of the MAHADA, 1976 states the scale showing the percentage of built up area to be reserved by the co-operative society for allotment by the board for building reconstructed for residential purposes and commercial purposes

ISSUES

  1. Whether the order passed by the appellate authority valid?

JUDGEMENT

It was found that the authority who passed the order was the same authority who was the vice president and chief executive officer who has rejected the application proposal for eligibility of the developer. The order was set aside on the ground that the authority had prior interest in the developer property.

The court took cognizance of 3rd schedule of the Maharashtra and Area Development Act, 1976 to review the eligibility of allotment of tenants.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0

No limitation would be applied in the cases where there is misrepresentation involved in acquiring land : Bombay HC

Blog , , , ,

TITLE : Shri Hanumant Baburao Neharkar v State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Sandeep V. Marne

DATE :  22nd  December, 2023

CITATION : WP No 11287 of 2018

FACTS

The petitioner challenge the order passed by the Revenue minister in Revision Application filed by the respondent. The revenue minister has set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and additional collector. The land which was allotted to the Respondent 5 was allotted jointly to him and to the petitioners together. The respondent filed appeal before the additional commissioner which was rejected. The revenue minister set aside the orders passed by additional collector and held that the land is solely allocated to respondent 5 alone and the petitioners have no right title and interest in the property.

The alternate property was initially allocated to Baban who had two sons. The property should have been allotted to the sons in natural course since on the day of allocation, Baban has passed away. However, the occupancy price was paid by the respondent 5, who is a son of Baban and the land was subsequently allocated to him. The heirs of the property were aggrieved by the said decision.

LAWS INVOLVED

Misrepresentation :

Misrepresentation is an untrue statement of a fact made by one party to another which changes the course of decision. It is defined under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act,1872.

“a misrepresentation is a form of a statement made preceding to the contract being completed. There are two varieties of statement that can be performed before a contract is formed, these will either:

  1. Form part of the contract.

Not form part of the contract, therefore it becomes a representation

ISSUES

Whether the sole allotment of land to Respondent 5 by the Revenue minister is valid?

JUDGEMENT

It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondent that the application filed by the petitioners is barred by limitation as it was filed 25 years later the allotment. Since this was an alternate property, the statutory provisions of the Rehabilitation Act,1986 was interpreted. According to the Act, the entire family will be granted one alternate land in a beneficial zone. The court held that since the alternate land allotted in the name of Respondent 5 was obviously meant for the entire family and only for the respondent 5. The court also held that the sole allotment of Respondent 5 was an act of misinterpretation and no limitation would apply.  The respondent took advantage of his father’s death and did not communicate the same to the other son about the application of allotment. The court held that the Respondent 5 acted through misrepresentation in getting the land.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

click here to view judgement

0

Separate possession and partition ordered by the collector cannot be disputed : Bombay HC

Blog , , , ,

 

TITLE : Mahadev v Smt, Rukmani Govindrao Khatmode

CORAM : Hon’ble justice Sandeep V. Marne

DATE :  19th December, 2023

CITATION : W.P No 100158 of 2018

FACTS

A land was originally owned by a Maruti Ramu Atole who died. One of the grandson executed a registered sale deed in favour of Govind Ravsaheb Khatmode without obtaining permission of the District Court for sale of share of the other grandsons and granddaughters. They were however, minors at the time and Govind assumed and claimed ownership of the property. A Sambha Bapu Jarande was claiming tenancy rights in respect of the same land and was in occupation of the property. Govind iled a civil suit and during the pendency of the case, the grandson and granddaughters filed a civil suit against both Govind and Sambha challenging the sale deed and possession. As far as the possession was concerned, it was held by the trial court that the possession was a trespass. The sale deed was voidable and respective shares were given to the grandsons and granddaughters, Govind was entitled to some share. He filed execution proceedings seeking possession of share of the granddaughters. Section 54 of CPC was used for the final decree. The Minister Revenue ordered that the land should be handed over to the respondents and the same is being challenged.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 54 of CPC states that :

When there is a decree for separate possession of an undivided estate, the partition of the estate will be made by the collector or any gazetted subordinate for the time being.

ISSUES

Whether Revenue Authorities have the authority to handover possession of the land in question to Respondent Nos.1 to 9 in execution of the decree dated 23 September 1980?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the trail court’s decision should be followed in effecting the partition and handling over of possession of land allotted to the respective shares including Govind. The trial court’s phrasing was “‘hence plaintiffs are not entitled directly to take possession of suit lands from defendant no.2” and that is why separate possession and partition was done. The court held that the order passed by the Minister Revenue recognizes the same. It determines the right between parties with regard to possession of land.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

1 2