FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.2328 of 2004 ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : ------------------------------------:------------------------------------ Mr.Chetan Kapadia with Mr.Vijendra S. Jabra for petitioner. Mr.A.P.Vanarase, AGP for res.Nos.1 & 4. Mr.S.G.Surana for res.No.3. Ms.S.I.Shah for res.Nos.2 & 5. ---- CORAM : H.L GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L GOKHALE & SMT.R.S.DALVI, JJ. SMT.R.S.DALVI, JJ. SMT.R.S.DALVI, JJ. DATED : 26th July 2005 DATED : 26th July 2005 DATED : 26th July 2005 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner claims to be purchaser of a property bearing C.T.S. No.1731-A (Part) situated at Vile Parle, Mumbai. He claims to have purchased the said property from Lila C. Christie, Sheela Davit and Clament Smuel Christie. This purchase seems to have taken sometimes in October 1982. Much prior thereto, however, a notification had been issued under Section 126(4) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23rd February 1974 declaring an intention to acquire the land for the benefit of MTNL. This being the position, the petitioner cannot claim any rights higher than that of the outgoing party which has been paid compensation. 3. Mr.Surana, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, has drawn our attention to two judgments of the Apex Court and particularly one in the case of U.P.Jal Nigam, Lucknow vs. Kalra U.P.Jal Nigam, Lucknow vs. Kalra U.P.Jal Nigam, Lucknow vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & ors. reported in (1996) 3 S.C.C. ors. reported in (1996) 3 S.C.C. ors. reported in (1996) 3 S.C.C. 124. 124. 124. In this judgment, the Apex Court has laid down that any alienation of land subsequent to the notification under the Land Acquisition Act is void against the State. All that such a subsequent purchaser is entitled to, at the most, compensation according to the provisions of the Act. There is nothing further that needs to be stated in this petition which seeks various reliefs against MTNL and the developer who is appointed by MTNL. 4. Petition is rejected. (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (H.L.GOKHALE, J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI, J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI, J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI, J.)