PURNIMA TALKIES Vs. CHIEF OFFICER, DAHANU NAGAR PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

(2.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following substantive reliefs:-

(3.) The legal issue which arises for consideration in this petition, revolves around the legality of the impugned order dtd. 23/7/2024 ("Impugned Order" for short) passed by respondent no. 1 whereby it refused to grant compensation to the petitioner as prayed for and holding that the petitioner is entitled only to TDR/FSI rights as set out in the impugned order. Petitioner questions the validity and legality of the rejection of the petitioner's claim to monetary compensation under provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the 2013 Act" for short) to be read with the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act ("MTRP Act" for short).