Latest Judgments

Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board v. Harivitthal Timaji Ghuguskar

Leave granted.

(Kurian Joseph and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.)

 

Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board ___________ Appellant

 

v.

 

Harivitthal Timaji Ghuguskar ________________________ Respondent

 

Civil Appeal No. 10693 of 2017 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34560 of 2016], decided on August 21, 2017

 

And

 

Civil Appeal No. 10694 of 2017 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 856 of 2017]

 

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

Kurian, J.:—

 

1. Leave granted.

 

2. There is a dispute as to what rate the respondents, who apparently are in possession of certain excess land than what is granted by the appellant-Board, should pay for the excess land.

 

3. Heard Mr. Gaurab Banerji, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as the learned Amicus Curiae. We are of the view that having regard to the entire background of the case, the interests of justice will be served if the respondents are directed to pay the land value at the reckoning rate of 1998-1999 fixed by the State Government, along with simple interest at the rate of 6% from the date of allotment. Ordered accordingly.

 

4. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of.

 

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 34560/2016

 

Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board ___________ Petitioner

 

v.

 

Harivitthal Timaji Ghuguskar ________________________ Respondent

 

(STAY APPLICATION)

 

WITH

 

SLP(C) No. 856/2017 (XVII)

 

Date : 21-08-2017 The petition was called on for hearing today.

 

(Before Kurian Joseph and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.)

 

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gaurab Banerji, Sr. Adv.

 

Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR

 

Ms. Neha Sangwan, Adv.

 

Amicus Curiae Mr. Hrishikesh Chitaley, Adv.

 

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shiv Ram Bhardwaj, Adv.

 

Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, AOR

 

Mr. Shashank K., Adv.

 

Mr. Baij Nath Patel, Adv.

 

Respondent-in-person

 

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

 

Order

 

5. Leave granted.

 

6. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment.

 

7. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

 

———