Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Replying to this, Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned GA appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3/ State has contended that the land was earmarked and notified in the approved layout plan which was approved by the Town and Country Planning Department as a road. It is a part and parcel of the road, hence, the petitioners have no right to create obstruction on the road. The GDA has not been made a party in the petition. It is a necessary party. There is no error apparent on the face of record. In support of the contentions learned GA relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2014) 5 SCC 75, Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, Antonio SC Pereira Vs. Richardina Noronha, (2006) 7 SCC 740, and of this Court in Maa Kaila Devi Enterprises Vs. State of MP, 2012 (4) MPHT 263 (DB) and Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of MP, [2013(2) MPLJ 707].