Digi - Legal Insights

Petitioner was not entitled to quash communication dated 21.09.2015, as necessary notice under Section 127 was satisfied and adequate public amenities were maintained in revised development plan effective from 10.02.2019.

Petitioners, who voluntarily gave possession of 25.39 acres of land in 2000, are not entitled to claim compensation or return of their land despite their plea, as they did not contest until December 2023.

Respondent No.3-State Government lacked authority to issue notifications that specified a multiplier factor of 1.00 for land acquisition related to national highways, as this power exclusively resides with Respondent No.1-Central Government.

Respondent No.2 is directed to issue new order under Section 11 of MOFA to acknowledge Petitioner Societys entitlement to Deemed Conveyance for 1479.10 square metres in Navi Mumbai and to provide necessary certificates for execution and registration of conveyance.

Although Court acknowledges landowners' right to fair compensation and recognizes potential errors by competent authority, Petitioner has alternative legal recourse by challenging initial award hence, Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution to enforce modified award, deeming it a nullity.

Delays in both petitions are within one year, Collector should have exercised his powers to condone delays, especially considering Petitioners are illiterate agriculturists unfamiliar with legal procedures thus, sufficient cause exists for Collector to act in accordance with Act.

Impugned order granting deemed conveyance is deemed unsustainable and should be quashed and all actions taken pursuant to said Certificate are also quashed.

Reference Courts dismissal of this instance was erroneous; thus, Appellants should receive compensation at this rate for dry land and Rs. 4,383/- per Are for semi-irrigated land.

Appellants civil suit, filed hastily without adhering to statutory requirements, is deemed vulnerable from its inception hence, impugned Order passed by City Civil Court, is upheld.

Justification for actions referenced in orders is outside scope of show cause notice, thus rendering those orders unsustainable hence, Respondents are ordered to pay ₹25 lakhs to Petitioners due to lengthy litigation process and associated costs incurred.

Decree for specific performance of contract remains executable despite defendant No. 2s death, as judgment indicates it does not negate actions against deceased parties.

First appellate Courts interpretation was found to be erroneous, confirming that document constituted a sale with a condition for repurchase, not a mortgage.

Plaintiffs' request for an injunction is supported by their prima facie case and balance of convenience, as Defendants did not challenge Plaintiffs' claims.

Allegations of bias favoring sugar factory owners were unsubstantiated and Court reiterated limited scope of judicial review in infrastructure matters, emphasizing necessity of maintaining public projects without interference in their decision-making processes.

Appellant No. 1 has repeatedly violated Court orders by refusing to vacate Flat No. 702, undermining Respondent No. 5s rights hence, no interference with impugned order passed by Single Judge.

Validity of Petitioners application cannot be dismissed in light of a subsequent proposal from promoter claiming majority support, especially since that claim is disputed with allegations of misrepresentation.

Court rejected continuation of interim relief but mandated that authorities must comply with statutory requirements during possession proceedings.

Regulatory measures that influence market conditions do not justify invalidating legislation under constitutional grounds, as amendments comply with statutory frameworks and do not impose taxes or extraneous premiums.

Consolidation scheme was fully implemented prior to 1975 and attempts to contest it 38 years later were deemed likely to disrupt settled claims.

Petitioner No. 2-Developer breached conditions by failing to seek necessary permissions, justifying cancellation of NOC.