Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 605 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Muddappa And Ors on 19 July, 1991

Harijan Lay Out Sudhar Samiti And Ors. vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 5 November, 1996

Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and direct a mandamus to issue forbidding the respondent No. 8 from raising or making any construction or otherwise using the land/space referred to above for residential purposes. The impugned actions of allotment of Kh. Nos. 37 and 38(1) to the respondent No. 8 by the respondents 1 to 7 regarding the allotment and possession, are quashed and set aside. Further, we direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to undertake the development and improvement of area Kh. No. 37 and 38(1) for public purpose and thereby preserve and protect environment by undertaking plantation.
Bombay High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

K. Durairaj vs The Secretary

62. The very same issue was elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust vs Muddappa and Others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 54 and by this Court in Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare Association vs Subbathal and others (2007 3 LW 259), wherein, it has been categorically held that public common places, earmarked for public purpose, cannot be alienated to the private individuals or any other purpose.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - M Dhandapani - Full Document

Kirubakaran vs The Commissioner (East) on 13 November, 2013

12. In this case, the contention of the appellants are that they are proposing to construct a hospital in the subject land, which will serve public purpose and an affidavit is also filed in writ appeal stage stating that 50% of the patients in the proposed hospital will be treated free of costs. Whether the establishment of a Private Nursing Home in an open space reserved for public park will serve public purpose was already considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1991) 4 SCC 54 (Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.Muddappa). The argument advanced on similar line that the Hospital with Research Centre and free service being more important from social angle, the inhabitants in the locality cannot be said to suffer any injury, much less substantial injury, was totally rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - N N Vasanthakumar - Full Document

A-2459 The Coats Viyella Employees vs Harvey Nagar Residents on 28 November, 2013

57. The plea taken on behalf of the Appellant is that the principles laid down in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in BANGALORE MEDICAL TRUST Vs. B.S.MUDDAPPA AND OTHERS (AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 1902), squarely applies to the facts of the present case in W.P.(MD) No.14451 of 2010 and the observation of the Learned Single Judge, while dismissing W.P.(MD) No.14451 of 2010 that the Writ Petition filed at the instance of the First Respondent is not maintainable, is contrary in the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. Viewed in that perspective, it is projected on the side of the Appellant that the Order of the Learned Single Judge dated 13/3/2013 in W.P.(MD) No.14451 of 2010 in dismissing the Writ Petition is not per se correct in the eye of law.
Madras High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sidco Nagar Welfare Association vs Chennai Metropolitan Development ...

In a more recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Bahadur v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2018 SCC 220, while dealing with the power of the Government to reclassify a land which was shown as green belt in the Master Plan into a residential zone set aside such conversion though legislative powers were invoked in the said case after referring to the judgment in Bangalore Medical Trust v. S.Muddappa and others, cited supra. While doing so the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Rajasthan Housing Board Shopping ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 20 January, 2006

7...It cannot be disputed that the persons who made complaint by writing letters to a learned judge of this Court are the residents of the locality, who are immensely interested in preserva-tion of open space/spaces meant for public park, garden, or children's play ground in a duly sanctioned scheme having statutory character. Reservation of open spaces for park and play ground etc. is now recognised as a legitimate exercise of statutory power, rationally related to the protection of the residents of the locality from the ill effect pf urbanisation. The residents of the locality are the persons intimately, vitally and developmentally effected by the action of the Authority which is destructive to the environment and which deprives the facilities reserved for the enjoyment and protection of health of public at large. They are naturally aggrieved by the action of JDA in the present case, and, they have therefore, necessary locus standi (See : Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Mudappa . While dealing with the question of locus standi, Justice R.M. Sahai observed as under:-
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - P S Asopa - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next