Skip to main content

Bombay HC quashes builders’ petitions against low-cost housing quota

 In a boost for the BJP government in Maharashtra, Bombay high court on Thursday dismissed a bunch of petitions challenging a state notification, which required developers or land owners to set aside 20 % of the plot for affordable housing.

Developers had moved the HC contending that the notification amounted to "compulsory acquisition of land" by the state, which it was not empowered to do. A bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and M S Sanklecha upheld the notification's validity in public interest. The challenge to the notification was filed by prominent developer D B Realty and others. Their primary contention was that the government had no power to bring in acquisition of land or rights to the land except under the Land Acquisition Act. The matters were heard at length last year and the state through then advocate-general Darius Khambata put up a stiff fight to justify its decision and oppose the petitions.

Khambata had argued that the state was empowered to permit incidental acquisition under development control rules (DCR). Arguments in court analyzed the DCR in depth and one petitioner also argued that the definition of low-cost and economically weaker section needs to be looked at more closely. The state said the notification allowed either 20% of plot layout to be reserved for low-cost housing or comparable buildable space in form of FSI.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/HC-quashes-builders-petitions-against-low-cost-housing-quota/articleshow/46137741.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Consumer forum can use forensic examination to settle disputes - NCDRC

A consumer forum has to follow a summary procedure for the adjudication of complaints. But at times, the authenticity and credibility of the evidence is challenged as fabricated. In such a situation, sometimes, a consumer forum refuses to weigh a complaint on the grounds that it involves adjudication of complicated facts. It, instead, asks the parties to approach the regular civil court. This is incorrect. In such a case, a consumer forum isn't helpless; it can obtain evidence by referring the documents for examination by experts. This significant ruling was given by a National Commission bench of judges K S Chaudhari and Suresh Chandra in revision petition number 2008 of 2012 on February 11, 2012 (The New India Assurance Co Ltd v/s Sree Sree Madan Mohan Rice Mill). The rice mill claimed a fire had broken out at its office-cum-manufacturing unit. An insurance claim was lodged for the loss. The insurance company didn't settle the claim. Aggrieved, the mill filed a complaint ...
1 comment
Read more

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more