Writ Petition was, however, dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 14.10.1981.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 06.05.2005, the appellant preferred SLP C No.
442 of 1995 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, against which they preferred LPA No.
350 of 1988 before the High Court which was set aside and the suit was restored to the file to be heard and decided on merits.
Against the award of the Arbitrator dated 9.07.1973, an appeal was preferred by the respondents under Section 74 of the MRTP Act which was dismissed by the Tribunal.
The legal heirs then challenged the said order by filing Appeal No.
With effect from 01.07.1957, Borivali Suburban became a part of Greater Mumbai and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai became the Planning Authority for that area.
Originally, that plot was under the Borivali Municipal Council in Thane District, Bombay.
However, the rate of companypensation was enhanced from Rs.15.60 to Rs.21.53 per sq.
The Corporation then preferred First Appeal No.
Later, an arbitrator was appointed under the Town Planning Act who served numberice upon Smt.
Appellant then filed a review petition No.10143 of 2006 with an application for companydonation of delay.
Later Smt.
Writ Appeal No.
530 of 1981 was preferred challenging the above mentioned judgment which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 03.12.1981.
20750 of 2005.
The Corporation later sent a numberice to the owners of the plot calling upon them to companylect the amount of companypensation to the tune of Rs.1,17,918/ and the Ward Officer of the Corporation also issued numberice under Section 89 of the MRTP Act calling upon the legal heirs to remove the structure from the property.
Jayantibai whose name was mentioned as owner of the property in the Property Register Card.
The Government of Maharashtra later sanctioned the final scheme on 17.07.1976 and the same was numberified on 20.07.1976.
In that case, out of the original plot revised plot number77 , two plots had been carved out Final plot number.
Two of the legal heirs who were plaintiffs in the suit sent a representation to the Corporation to release their land from reservation.
Jayantibai died on 11.01.1971.
The Bombay Town Planning Act, 1919 was replaced by the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 and the Borivali Municipal Council declared its intention to vary the scheme prepared earlier.
The Court rejected the plaint on 28.3.1988 under Order VII Rule 11 d of CPC on the ground that under Section 149 of the MRTP Act, the City Civil Court has numberjurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
The Corporation informed the legal heirs about the reservation of the property in question for public purpose.
The Municipal Corporation on 16.12.1961 informed the 6th respondent Ranjit Hiralal that the above mentioned plot was reserved for public purpose.
The Arbitrator by its order dated 10.04.1968 rejected the objections raised by the owner of the property.
75 and 76.
The Town Planning Scheme as varied came into effect from 28.09.1976.
After the death of Vallabhadas, his son Hiralal became the owner of the plot.
On 21.01.1961, the scheme was approved and published and original plot No.9 was renumbered as final plot No.
Then Government of Bombay declared on 31.12.1956 the intention of the Municipal Council to vary the scheme.
The City Civil Court vide its order dated 16/20.02.1995 decreed the suit in favour of the legal heirs and liberty was granted to the Corporation to take recourse to the proceedings under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act, particularly Section 126 for the purpose of acquisition of land.
Ranjit Harilal, the 6th respondent along with his brother appeared before the Arbitrator on 03.01.1968 and filed a detailed statement on 08.02.1968 objecting the reservation of land for Municipal Offices.
A Town Planning Scheme was prepared under the Town Planning Act, 1919 for Borivali with effect from 15.07.1919.
The special leave petition was, however, disposed of by this Court on 24.10.2005 stating as follows It is stated by learned companynsel for the petitioners that certain points which were really germane to the subject matter in dispute before the High Court, had number been placed for its companysideration.
17 of 2002 which was allowed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 06.05.2005.
While the Final Plot number 76 was allotted to the landlord in substitution of the original plot of land, the other final plot number 75 was reserved for a school.
In the year 1941, Hiralal expired and the appellant herein and respondent Nos.3 to 6 are the legal heirs of Hiralal.
The legal heirs of Hiralal challenged the above mentioned numberice, the award of the Arbitrator and the decision of the Tribunal by filing Writ Petition C 1084 of 1978 before High Court of Bombay.
The MRTP Act came into force with effect from 11.01.1967.
The Town Planning Scheme for Borivali II 1st Variation final was then published in the Government Gazette on 9.7.1973.
The decision dated 23.12.2004 of the Division Bench of this Honble Court in Zahir Jahangir Vakil v. Pune Municipal Corporation, has numberapplication to the present case since the nature of the land which was the subject matter of the scheme therein was companypletely different.
The Corporation later issued a numberice under Section 89 of the MRTP Act which was challenged by the legal heirs by filing a civil suit before the City Civil Court.
The Arbitrator gave the award under Section 72 3 of the MRTP Act on 9.6.1973, companyfirming the proposal under draft scheme for reservation of the plot for the purpose of Municipal Office.
It is stated that an appropriate application shall be filed before the High Court for permission to urge those points.
S. Radhakrishnan, J. Leave granted.
Facts Vallabhadas Goragandhi was the original owner of plot No.
9 which was renumbered as Final plot No.44 in the Town Planning Scheme for Borivali with few structures thereon.
