Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 75 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing 3 Aces, Hyderabad vs Municipal Corporation Of Hyderabad on 2 September, 1994

Smt. Gajula Sobha Rani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 November, 2018

"The petitioner relies on a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in 3 Aces v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, 1995 (1) ALD 1 (FB) : AIR 1995 AP 17. A number of issues under the provisions of the Act fell for the consideration of the Full Bench in that case, including as to the entitlement of a person to construct in the factual context of a deemed permission consequent on the silence of the Municipal 13 Corporation in responding to an application for building permission within the stipulated time. This Court pointed out in the judgment that a deemed permission is not a licence to vagrant and malignant construction. Deemed permission would enable construction in accordance with the extant building regulations, pointed out this Court."
Telangana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Gajula Sobha Rani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 November, 2018

"The petitioner relies on a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in 3 Aces v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, 1995 (1) ALD 1 (FB) : AIR 1995 AP 17. A number of issues under the provisions of the Act fell for the consideration of the Full Bench in that case, including as to the entitlement of a person to construct in the factual context of a deemed permission consequent on the silence of the Municipal 13 Corporation in responding to an application for building permission within the stipulated time. This Court pointed out in the judgment that a deemed permission is not a licence to vagrant and malignant construction. Deemed permission would enable construction in accordance with the extant building regulations, pointed out this Court."
Telangana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Gajula Sobha Rani, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 November, 2018

"The petitioner relies on a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in 3 Aces v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, 1995 (1) ALD 1 (FB) : AIR 1995 AP 17. A number of issues under the provisions of the Act fell for the consideration of the Full Bench in that case, including as to the entitlement of a person to construct in the factual context of a deemed permission consequent on the silence of the Municipal 13 Corporation in responding to an application for building permission within the stipulated time. This Court pointed out in the judgment that a deemed permission is not a licence to vagrant and malignant construction. Deemed permission would enable construction in accordance with the extant building regulations, pointed out this Court."
Telangana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Gajula Sobha Rani, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 November, 2018

"The petitioner relies on a judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in 3 Aces v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, 1995 (1) ALD 1 (FB) : AIR 1995 AP 17. A number of issues under the provisions of the Act fell for the consideration of the Full Bench in that case, including as to the entitlement of a person to construct in the factual context of a deemed permission consequent on the silence of the Municipal 13 Corporation in responding to an application for building permission within the stipulated time. This Court pointed out in the judgment that a deemed permission is not a licence to vagrant and malignant construction. Deemed permission would enable construction in accordance with the extant building regulations, pointed out this Court."
Telangana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G.V. Narsimha Reddy And Anr. vs Commissioner, Nirmal Municipality on 10 February, 2005

(iii) The Corporation should give notice of demolition as required by the statute fixing the date of demolition. Even on the said date, before actually resorting to the demolition, the Corporation should give reasonable time, depending upon the premises sought to be demolished, for the inmates to withdraw from the premises. If within the time given the inmates do not withdraw, the Corporation may proceed with actual demolition. These guidelines are laid down in view of the fact that the Corporation is a public authority and its action must be tested on the touchstone of fairness and reasonableness."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

B. Uma Devi vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... on 5 September, 2007

20. Apart from the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in 3 Aces v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and Pratibha Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (1st and 2nd supra), the broad principles with regard to the power of the local authorities to deal with unauthorized or deviant constructions as spelt out in other binding precedents, may be noticed.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - G Raghuram - Full Document

Machilipatnam Municipality Rep. By Its ... vs Inampudi Lakshmikanthamma And Anr. on 28 July, 1995

In the case of 3 ACES v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, a Full Bench of this Court had considered the scope of Section 452 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act is not mandatory. The process of demolition should not be resorted to unless overwhelming public interest was involved. Section 452 is analogous to Section 228 of A.P. Municipalities Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K. Srinivasan And Others vs Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, ... on 16 November, 1999

In the case of 3 Aces, Hyderabad v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, (FB), the Full Bench of this High Court while dealing with several questions including what shall be the order passed in administrative character and in case buildings are constructed within the municipal limits violating the zonal regulations or sanctioned plan, held that such unauthorised and unlawful constructions shall deserve to be demolished making a reference to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, , wherein it was held as follows:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - A S Bhate - Full Document

Yaseen Khatoon vs Commissioner, Municipal Corporation ... on 25 April, 2005

10. The fact that the petitioner sought for and obtained permission for construction of ground plus two floors is not denied or disputed. The specific case of the petitioner is that after submitting an application for construction of 3rd and 4th floors on 20-1-2004, she started construction work from 12-5-2004, after giving intimation to the first respondent when she did not receive any communication either approving or rejecting her application. It is to be noted that petitioner filed the office copy of the letter dated 24-11-2003, addressed by her husband to the Chief City Planner, Town Planning Section, in which, he stated that his wife (petitioner) is having a house at Dargah and is running a lodge therein since a long time, and that he wants to construct two more floors thereon to expand the business of the lodge and since his property, at lower tank bund, was acquired for construction of a fly over, he was advised to approach him (City Planner) for permission to proceed with the construction, by relaxation of the rules, and so permission for construction of 3rd and 4th floors by relaxing the Rules may be granted. Since petitioner filed that document, she must be imputed with knowledge of the contents therein. So, it is clear that petitioner and her husband, acting on her behalf, are fully aware of the fact that construction of 3rd and 4th floors of the building can be made only by obtaining relaxation of the Building Rules. Hence, it is clear that petitioner is aware that construction of 3rd and 4th floors on her building without relaxation would be irregular. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Counsel for the second respondent, construction, under the deemed provision, can be proceeded with only if it is in accordance with the building rules and regulations, but not if it is in violation of the building rules and regulations. So, when the petitioner submitted a building plan, which is contrary to the building rules and regulations, for approval, even if first respondent did not pass orders thereon, petitioner cannot proceed with construction of such building under the deemed permission Clause as per the ratio in 3 ACES case (supra). So, petitioner cannot say that first respondent has no right to order demolition of the illegal constructions being made by her.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next