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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more