Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 156 (3.13 seconds)
Documents citing M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 March, 2009

Paryavarana Parirakshana Sangham ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 13 April, 2022

(iv) Even if the wetlands identified and mapped were not to be included as wetlands, then they will have to be treated as water bodies and steps will have to be taken to protect the same as has been observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in M.K. Balakrishnan's case cited supra and remove encroachments and restrain any activity in the wetland or water body, as it is necessary to protect the water bodies also as equal to wetlands, as they also play a great role in sustainability of the environment and provide valuable ecosystem services.
National Green Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kishore Samrite vs Union Of India on 13 December, 2021

18. In view of above, as far as issue to protection of water bodies generally is concerned, the same stands concluded and the authorities in 19 the State of MP may deal with the matter in accordance with the said directions. Needless to say that in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.K. Balakrishnan and Ors. vs. Union of India12, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors.13andHinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi14, the State Authorities are under obligation to protect the water bodies.Water becoming contaminated cannot be a ground to change the land use and destroy such water body.
National Green Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document

H.P. Ranjanna vs Union Of India on 30 July, 2021

267. It is not disputed before us, by the parties, that two lakes namely ―Kaikondarahalli Lake‖ and ―Kasavanahalli Lake‖ are though not notified under Wetland Rules, 2010 and 2017 since procedure of notification has not been completed till date but both are mentioned in National Wetland Inventory Assessment and among 201503 wetlands identified in respect whereof Supreme Court in M.K. Balakrishnan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) has said that Rule 4 of Rules 2010 will apply. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the restrictions contained in Rule 4 of Rules 2010 which are substituted later by Rules 2017, shall apply to both the lakes.
National Green Tribunal Cites 105 - Cited by 1 - A K Goel - Full Document

Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Sanghi Industries Limited on 25 February, 2022

352. We have carefully considered the above contention of Ld. Sr. counsel. Perusal of the record reveals that appellant has not provided any details of existence of any wetland in the vicinity of the proposed unit. Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant has, however, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balakrishnan vs Union of India [2018 (2) SCJ 2071. We have gone through the said judgment and are of the opinion that there is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down therein. However, we find that the appellant itself has not given any details about the wetland in the vicinity of the proposed unit.
National Green Tribunal Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document

Suvidha Seva Sansthan Singrauli ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Through The ... on 7 September, 2021

35. There is discussion in the media about inadequacy of monitoring of action for restoration of lakes, wetlands and ponds which is certainly necessary for strengthening the rule of law and protection of public health and environment3. Several directions have been issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in M.K. Balakrishnan and Ors. v. UOI & Ors.4"
National Green Tribunal Cites 118 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Acit, Range-2, Trivandrum, ... vs Smt.Jayashree Sreedharan, Trivandrum on 24 October, 2018

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India & Others (supra) had categorically held merely because the sale price is fixed through a negotiated settlement will not take away the proceedings from the Land Acquisition Act when the relevant provision of the Act are invoked. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as follows:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.Padmaja Devi Amma, Calicut vs The Ito,, Trivandrum on 5 February, 2019

of urban agricultural land was that it was not a compulsory acquisition, but only executed through a negotiated sale deed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balakrishnan v. Union of India & Others (supra) had categorically held merely because the sale price is fixed through a negotiated settlement will not take away the proceedings from the Land Acquisition Act when the relevant provision of the Act are invoked. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as follows:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next