PARAG CONSTRUCTION versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 366 · Decided: 19-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 366 
'' ...... t .,,..., • If 
~·· 
v. 
~ 
; ... 
, .1,l-l ,.~ •. STAT.E-OF.MA~AR;\SHTRf' & ORS, . 
....... 
·(Civil Appeal-No. 67.12· of-2008) · 
' 
I • 4 
• 
f 
~ 
' 
I 
f i 
, 
• ; 
1 ! ' 
~ f,' I 
f 
. . 
NOVEMBER .19, .2008 
; ' 
j 
r 
• 
I 
' 
' 
' ~ 
.. j 
.: • 
~ 
'" 
' <[t:OKESHWAR's1N.GH PANTA ANO ·•·1' '. 
,, .. ·. 
'., 
v.s~· SIRPURKAR, JJ.]' ' ' 1.·' 
I 
' 
• 
~ 'ft If. 
..... 
0 I 
' 
• ~ 
~ 
'\ 
' 
~ 
; 
'~~· t 
.._. 
• • 
f.. • 
I ,; 
~ 
! 
J 
• 
· ·Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 ~ ss: 83 
c and 86 -,Acquisition.of. land ur1der provisions of the Act -
Chal(enged by appellants, Of1 _groµnd tha( _they, h,ad .acqufred 
title to the_land, and the acquisitionproqe~di(lgS beif?g Wifh_qu{ 
notice to them ,W~S illegal and non-est. -_ 1Writ petition, of 
appellants dism(ssed .. f?Yi/f/gh 1(;purt ....,1 Propri~ty1 :of, ~He/~; 
0 
Pro~ter ::t· Tlw w
1
.:itbpl ~ttifiobn ~da_~J1~peleds!il~.f?elf1{
1
~
1
.c! -:-t,EhYrd.n,.orr 
men s, / 
~as: 1a e o e 1sm1sse 
as appe an s 
a no 
entitlement to notice, in view of the finalized proceedings of 
arbitration 1under the Act- Land'in question was alreaCiy a parl 
of the Town Planning Scheme. (TPS) and under notice to 
original owners bf.the land; 'advance possession thereorhad ' 
E already b'een taken' under s.86(2) and 's.83(3)''- Appellants 
a/so . not able' to prime' 'tacie. prove their title •or possession, 
vis-13-vis, the'la'hd 'in question: 
1• ,.. 
., •'"" 1 
•
1 ~r1 
l'~·,~t"t,· l·Jt· f\I·· ,,,, 
·~i.-1 
~-
1 ~.I l .,,,t. I!~ 
~,. 
t 
'
1 
t 
~. l 
. • Maharashtra, ,Slum A_reas (/mprovem_ent. ,Cle.a ranee and 
F Redevelopment) Act, 1197.1,';7.s.3A--,Slum dwellers in Mumbai 
City"~nd 1 Mumbai Suburban., Districts 1 ·' ,Decision. of 
Mahar:.as_fltra 1Governme11t1.to, redevelop slums '."7• Slum 
Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) established ~ Powers g/,ven to 
SRA for implementation of, .S.lum, Re/:labilitation Projects -
G Proceedings . .under;SRA -;--. ~espondents1 3. and,~ purportedly 
given. development rights in :respect of. the specified land,;-
Challenge to, by ·appellants ~Jn. view. ofdhe /acts and 
circumstan.ces of the case, Supreme Court refused to inte'rtere 
,,... Parties_ :however given Jib~rty to· neg9tia~e,. if.they. want to, 
subjectlo.1app(oval.of.SRA. "· ,, . r'· II•'\ !I~ u • . , 
I, .f 
I 
H 
' . : ' . t'. 
I 
\ 
• I 
366 'l ' • i: '' 
•. ! 
" ' 
" . 
J-
PARAG CONSTRUCTION v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
367 
& ORS. 
,. 
,,.4... 
Appellants filed writ petition challenging the A 
acquisition of land in question by Respondent No.7, 
arbitrator under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning 
Act, 1966, on the ground that they had acquired title to 
the land in dispute, and therefore, the acquisition 
proceedings being without notice to them was illegal and 
B 
-" 
non-est. 
1 
The appellants claimed to have purchased the 
property in an auction in September, 1981. The writ 
petition was filed in the year 2006. The High Court 
dismissed th~ writ petition on merits. 
c 
In the instant appeal, the question which arose for 
consideration was whether the writ petition was 
hopelessly belated and was hence not tenable and that 
even on merits, it was liable to be dismissed (as done by 
D 
the High Court) as the appellants had no entitlement to 
notice, in view of the finalized proceedings of arbitration 
under the Act whereby the land in question was already 
a part of the Town Planning Scheme (TPS); inasmuch as 
in the year 1980, under notice to the original owners of 
E 
the property, viz. the Ve!kar family, Respondent No.7 had 
already taken advance possession thereof under s.86(2) 
and s.83(3) of the Act and the land in question vested in 
Respondent No.6. i.e. the Muncipal Corporation of 
Greater Mumbai, free from all encumbrances, including 
r-> 
the alleged subsequent encumbrances of the appellants. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal with certain observ~tions, the 
Court 
HELD: 1.1.The contention raised by the appellants 
that the action of taking possession under s.86(2) of the 
G 
·~ 
Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 by the 
~ 
Arbitrator could be done only when the Arbitrator gives 
a notice to the person interested in the land and the 
appellants were "person interested", as they came on the 
'· 
land via sale certificate in September, 1981, is incorrect, 
H 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A for the simple reason that the appellants merely 
-""' 
,,,__ 
purchased the properties of Velkar Family in the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.