MANEESH BAWA AND ORS. Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (7), BOMBAY AND ANR.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 11577 of 2016, Judgment Date: Dec 02, 2016

                                                              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.

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 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  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.