Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Supreme Court Directs Rehabilitation or Compensation for Longstanding Occupants

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that underscores the rights of citizens over their longstanding occupied properties, the Supreme Court today mandated the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to “consider the claim of the appellants in terms of the Town Planning Scheme either for rehabilitation or payment of compensation.”

The apex court’s decision comes in the wake of a protracted legal battle that began in 2001, concerning the rights of the appellants who have been in possession of their property since 1976. The property, which has been a subject of multiple legal notices and suits, is now due for rehabilitation or compensation as per the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme.

The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, overturned the High Court’s decision that had ruled against the appellants. The Supreme Court observed that the claim of the appellants is genuine and deserves consideration, noting, “admittedly, the appellants were found to be in possession of the property in dispute from the year 1976 onwards.”

The Court has set a deadline for the Corporation to resolve the matter, ordering that “the needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.”

This judgment is poised to set a precedent for similar cases where occupants’ rights to rehabilitation or compensation are in contention, especially in the context of urban development and town planning schemes.

Date of Decision: 06 November 2023.

JAFFAR ALI NAWAB ALI  CHAUDHARI AND OTHERS VS THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFGREATER MUMBAI       

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/06-Nov-2023-Jaffar-Ali-Vs-MC-Greater-Mumbai.pdf"]

Similar News