High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 11 BOM CK 0124

Shri Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others vs M.I.D.C. and Another

Bombay High Court · Decided on 14 November 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.K. Deshmukh, J · Anoop V. Mohta, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 9513 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 204 words
1.

According to the Petitioners the possession of their land was taken by MIDC in the year 1964. It is also the case of the Petitioners that they were not paid any compensation from 1964. The Petitioners are not in a position to point out that they had made any attempt or made any grievance for getting compensation of the land.

2.

It appears that in the year 1981 a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquiring the land. It is true that in the year 1981 there was no requirement for issuing notification u/s 6 within a period of three years from the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4. But that requirement was introduced in the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1984. Admittedly, now the land is already developed by the authorities long back. Buildings have been constructed. Third party rights have already been created. All the Respondents have filed their affidavits stating that the papers are not available. The Petitioner is guilty of unexplained laches and therefore in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution no relief can be granted to the Petitioner. Petition is, therefore, rejected.