Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11577 OF 2016
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 5226 OF 2016 ]
MANEESH BAWA AND ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (7),
BOMBAY AND ANR. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are aggrieved since the
Notification dated 04.03.1987 under Sub-Section 4 of
Section 126 of the MRTP Act was not quashed. It was
also made clear that the acquisition would be
proceeded further, treating the same as under
Subsection (4) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act read
with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
JUDGMENT
3. When the matter came up before us, while issuing
notice, the following order was passed :-
"Issue notice.
Ms. Suchitra Atul Chitale, learned
counsel, accepts notice on behalf of
the respondents.
The learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners submits that in the
new scheme, they are prepared to
surrender 70% of the land so that they
can retain 30%. The learned senior
Page 1
2
counsel appearing for the respondents
seeks time to get further instruction.
Post after two weeks.
The parties are directed to maintain
status quo with regard to the disputed
property."
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 2, on instruction, submits that there
is a Scheme available, known as the ' Accommodation
Reservation Policy' dated 02.05.2016.
5. Therefore, it is for the appellants to apply in
terms of the said Scheme/Policy dated 02.05.2016.
Orders in accordance with law and as per the Policy
would be passed by the competent authority within a
period of two months thereafter.
6. We make it clear that the impugned order passed
JUDGMENT
by the High Court shall not stand in the way of the
competent authority passing orders, as above.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.
No costs.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
December 02, 2016.
Page 2