9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Leave Petitions have been filed against the orders passed in W.P. No.5196/89 on March 12, 1990 and W.P. No.1552/96 on April 26, 1996. There is absolutely no merit for condonation of delay in the the first writ petition. As regards the second writ petition, the facts are not in dispute. Way back in 1974, notification under Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act ["MRTP A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No. 1552/96 came to be filed. That writ petition was also dismissed on the ground that the earlier order in the writ petition operated as res judicate. Therefore, the second writ petition was held to be not maintainable. Shri Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that in the second writ petition, the petitioner sought restitution of the possession pursuant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notification in either of the writ petitions. It is axiomatic that the land acquired for a public purpose would be utilised for any another public purpose, though use of it was intended for the original public purpose. It is not intended that any land which remain unutilised, should be restituted to the erstwhile owner to whom adequate compensation was paid according to the market value as on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
