Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (1.90 seconds)
Documents citing Hansraj H. Jain vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 14 July, 1993

P.Arivudainambi vs The Managing Director on 28 April, 2006

A. In the case of the petitioner in W.P. No.39279 of 2005, according to him, his only housing plot admeasuring an extent of 5700 sq. ft. situate in Survey No.300/13 of Velachery village had been acquired way back on 15.10.1999. When he challenged the same by filing writ petition in W.P. No.16929 of 1999, the Government gave an undertaking before the Court on 15.10.1999 that his possession would not be disturbed without following the due process of law. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that contrary to the said undertaking, the petitioner was dispossessed forcibly for the execution of the project work. After taking the possession forcibly, the State Government resorted to acquisition proceedings and passed award in Award No.1 of 20 03, dated 10.01.2003. The petitioner's land had been acquired by the second respondent for the purpose of implementing M.R.T.S. Railway project. The project has been jointly implemented by the second respondent and the Government of India and the entire cost of the project was shared by both State and Central Government on the ratio of 67:3 3. The petitioner, having no other housing land, filed W.P.M.P. No.25732 of 2003 in W.P. No.15947 of 2002. The petitioner sought for a direction to the Government to allot equal proportion of the vacant land anywhere within the Corporation/City Limit. After hearing both sides, considering the grievance of the petitioner, learned single Judge passed an order on 12.12.2003, permitting the petitioner to make a representation for allotment of alternate site, with a positive direction that, if any such representation is made, the State Government and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board shall consider the request for allotment of land under the special category of displaced persons by the acquisition of lands for the Railways as has been held by the Supreme Court in Hansraj H. Jain vs. State of Maharashtra (1993 AIR SCW 2923 ). After the said order, the petitioner made a representation to the Government, enclosing copy of the order referred above. By order dated 26.05.2005, the second respondent passed the impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner. In the said order, the Government, after finding, the lands were already vested with the Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways) for Mass Rapid Transit System, therefore, there is no justification for allotment of land to the petitioner in any scheme area when the lands were not acquired either by Tamil Nadu Housing Board or Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority; declined to accede to the request of the petitioner, hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition, viz., W.P. No.39279 of 2005.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P. Arivudainambi vs The Managing Director, Tamilnadu ... on 28 April, 2006

A. In the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 39279 of 2005, according to him, his only housing plot admeasuring an extent of 5700 sq. ft. situate in Survey No. 300/13 of Velachery village had been acquired way back on 15.10.1999. When he challenged the same by filing writ petition in W.P. No. 16929 of 1999, the Government gave an undertaking before the Court on 15.10.1999 that his possession would not be disturbed without following the due process of law. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that contrary to the said undertaking, the petitioner was dispossessed forcibly for the execution of the project work. After taking the possession forcibly, the State Government resorted to acquisition proceedings and passed award in Award No. 1 of 20 03, dated 10.01.2003. The petitioner's land had been acquired by the second respondent for the purpose of implementing M.R.T.S. Railway project. The project has been jointly implemented by the second respondent and the Government of India and the entire cost of the project was shared by both State and Central Government on the ratio of 67:3 3. The petitioner, having no other housing land, filed W.P.M.P. No. 25732 of 2003 in W.P. No. 15947 of 2002. The petitioner sought for a direction to the Government to allot equal proportion of the vacant land anywhere within the Corporation/City Limit. After hearing both sides, considering the grievance of the petitioner, learned single Judge passed an order on 12.12.2003, permitting the petitioner to make a representation for allotment of alternate site, with a positive direction that, if any such representation is made, the State Government and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board shall consider the request for allotment of land under the special category of displaced persons by the acquisition of lands for the Railways as has been held by the Supreme Court in Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra 1993 AIR SCW 2923. After the said order, the petitioner made a representation to the Government, enclosing copy of the order referred above. By order dated 26.05.2005, the second respondent passed the impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner. In the said order, the Government, after finding, the lands were already vested with the Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways) for Mass Rapid Transit System, therefore, there is no justification for allotment of land to the petitioner in any scheme area when the lands were not acquired either by Tamil Nadu Housing Board or Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority; declined to accede to the request of the petitioner, hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition, viz., W.P. No. 39279 of 2005.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs.Jothilakshmi @ Jothi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu

whether the stay obtained by some of the persons who prohibited the respondents from publication of the declaration under Section 6 would equally be extendible to the cases relating to the appellants. We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but since the High Court in some of the cases has, in fact, prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of the declaration, necessarily, when the Court has not restricted the declaration in the impugned orders in support of the petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands till the matters are disposed of. In fact, this Court has given extended meaning to the orders of stay or proceeding in various cases, namely, Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya Vs. State of Gujarat - 1991 (4) SCC 531; Hansraj H.Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra - 1993 (3) SCC 634;
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Lalita Saini vs State & Anr on 14 August, 2019

In Suresh Kumar Bhikam chand Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2013) 3 SCC 77, the issue included the right of an accused person to be released on bail under Section 167 (2) CrPC for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, 406, 408, 409, 411, 465, 466, 468, 471, 177 & 109 read with Section 34 IPC and also under Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was held that the accused was not entitled to grant of statutory bail under Section 167 CrPC, as the charge-sheet was filed within the stipulated period of 90 days.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M K Ohri - Full Document

Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal And Ors. Etc. on 6 March, 2020

à-vis the writ petitioners therein. The question that arises for consideration is whether the stay obtained by some of the persons who prohibited the respondents from publication of the declaration under Section 6 would equally be extendible to the cases relating to the appellants. We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but since the High Court in some of the cases has, in fact, prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of the declaration, necessarily, when the Court has not restricted the declaration in the impugned orders in support of the petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands till the matters were disposed of. In fact, this Court has given extended meaning to the orders of stay or proceeding in various cases, namely, Yusufbhai Noormohmed Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 531, Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, (1993) 3 SCC 634, Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka, (1994) 4 SCC 145, Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (1993) 2 SCC 662, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka, (1991) 3 SCC 261 and Roshnara Begum v. Union of India, (1986) 1 Apex Dec 6. The words “stay of the action or proceeding” have been widely interpreted by this Court and mean that any type of the orders passed by this Court would be an inhibitive action on the part of the authorities to proceed further. When the action of conducting an enquiry under Section 5-A was put in issue and the declaration under Section 6 was questioned, necessarily unless the Court holds that enquiry under Section 5-A was properly conducted and the declaration published under Section 6 was valid, it would not be open to the officers to proceed further into the matter. As a consequence, the stay granted in respect of some would be applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that behalf. We are not concerned with the correctness of the earlier direction with regard to Section 5-A enquiry and consideration of objections as it was not challenged by the respondent Union. We express no opinion on its correctness, though it is open to doubt.” 193 (1997) 5 SCC 421
Supreme Court of India Cites 442 - Cited by 1731 - A Mishra - Full Document

Faizabad Ayodhya Development ... vs Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey on 20 May, 2022

We proceed on the premise that the appellants had not obtained any stay of the publication of the declaration but since the High Court in some of the cases has, in fact, prohibited them as extracted hereinbefore, from publication of the declaration, necessarily, when the Court has not restricted the declaration in the impugned orders in support of the petitioners therein, the officers had to hold back their hands till the matters were disposed of. In fact, this Court has given extended meaning to the orders of stay or proceeding in various cases, namely, Yusufbhai Noormohmed 34 Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat [(1991) 4 SCC 531], Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra [(1993) 3 SCC 634], Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjan v. State of Karnataka [(1994) 4 SCC 145], Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [(1993) 2 SCC 662], G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. State of Karnataka [(1991) 3 SCC 261] and Roshnara Begum v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 13976 of 1996 sub nom Murari v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 15] . The words “stay of the action or proceeding” have been widely interpreted by this Court and mean that any type of the orders passed by this Court would be an inhibitive action on the part of the authorities to proceed further. When the action of conducting an enquiry under Section 5-A was put in issue and the declaration under Section 6 was questioned, necessarily unless the Court holds that enquiry under Section 5-A was properly conducted and the declaration published under Section 6 was valid, it would not be open to the officers to proceed further into the matter. As a consequence, the stay granted in respect of some would be applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that behalf. We are not concerned with the correctness of the earlier direction with regard to Section 5-A enquiry and consideration of objections as it was not challenged by the respondent Union. We express no opinion on its correctness, though it is open to doubt.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 4 - M R Shah - Full Document

Anil Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 6 March, 1998

ther in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roshanara Begum v. Union of India, 1986 (1) Apex Decision 6; G. Narain Swamyreddy v. Government of Karnataka, 1991 (3)JT(SC) 12 : (AIR 1991 SC 1726); YusufBhai Noor Mohammed Nandoliya v. State of Gujarat, 1991 (4) SCC 531 :(AIR 1991 SC 2153);Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 (3) JT (SC) 194 : (AIR 1994 SC 2329); Hansraj Jain v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 (4) JT (SC) 360 : (1993 AIR SCW 2923); Sangappa Gurulingappa Sajjal v. State of Karnataka, 1994 (4) SCC l45; Abhey Ram v. Union of India, 1997 (5) JT (SC) 353 : (AIR 1997 SC 2564) and Venkataswamappa (supra) wherein it has been held that even if the stay order is granted in one case, it will be deemed to have been the stay in all the cases and even if only dispossession is stayed, it would extend to all further proceedings, the respondents were supposed to keep their hands off after the grant of the said interim order, but in the instant cases, the actual proceedings, i.e., publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Official Gazette and all other subsequent publications including declaration under Section 6 took place after the date of grant of interim order. Thus, the respondents cannot be permitted to plead that they could not complete the proceedings and make declaration under Section 6 within one year because of the interim stay. The respondents themselves have chosen to ignore the order passed by this Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next