02 December 2016
Supreme Court
Download

MANEESH BAWA Vs SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (7), BOMBAY

Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH,ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Case number: C.A. No.-011577-011577 / 2016
Diary number: 365 / 2016
Advocates: KAUSHIK PODDAR Vs


1

Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11577 OF 2016

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 5226 OF 2016 ]  MANEESH BAWA AND ORS.                       Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (7),  BOMBAY AND ANR. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.   2. The  appellants  are  aggrieved  since  the Notification dated 04.03.1987 under Sub-Section 4 of Section 126 of the MRTP Act was not quashed.  It was also  made  clear  that  the  acquisition  would  be proceeded  further,  treating  the  same  as  under Subsection (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.  

3. When the matter came up before us, while issuing notice, the following order was passed :-

"Issue notice. Ms.  Suchitra  Atul  Chitale,  learned counsel,  accepts  notice  on  behalf  of the respondents. The  learned  senior  counsel  appearing for the petitioners submits that in the new  scheme,  they  are  prepared  to surrender 70% of the land so that they can  retain  30%.   The  learned  senior

2

Page 2

2

counsel appearing for the respondents seeks time to get further instruction. Post after two weeks.   The  parties  are  directed  to  maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property."

4. The  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the respondent No. 2, on instruction, submits that there is a Scheme available, known as the 'Accommodation Reservation Policy' dated 02.05.2016.   

5. Therefore, it is for the appellants to apply in terms  of  the  said  Scheme/Policy  dated  02.05.2016. Orders in accordance with law and as per the Policy would be passed by the competent authority within a period of two months thereafter.    

6. We make it clear that the impugned order passed by the High Court shall not stand in the way of the competent authority passing orders, as above.   

7. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.        

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]  New Delhi; December 02, 2016.