Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.33 seconds)

Municipal Board vs Om Prakash Kabari on 1 November, 1971

8. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on Briinandan Prosad v. Emperor. AIR 1945 All 232 wherein it has been laid down that the failure of the Board to pass a suitable order within a month of the receipt of the notice under Section 178 entitled the applicant to make the construction and that the Board in such a situation would be deemed to have sanctioned the proposed work. It does not appear from the facts of the aforesaid case, as narrated in the judgment, whether a written communication as contemplated under Sub-section (3) of Section 180 calling the attention of the Board to its omission or neglect had or had not been given. There is no discussion about this point in the case. In the present case the attention of the Board was not drawn to its omission or neglect to pass an order as specified under Sub-section (1) of Section 180. In the circumstances, the respondent1972was not entitled to construct the third and fourh storeys of the building as the Board could not be deemed to have sanctioned the proposed work.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Malhoo Mian Abdul Ghani vs State Through Municipal Board, ... on 30 January, 1953

In order to incur the penalty prescribed under Section 185, Municipalities Act, the erection or material alteration has got to be made in a building or a part of a building -- if any one makes such an alteration without giving the requisite notice under Section 178 then he becomes liable to punishment under Section 185. Under Section 178 before a person begins a construction within the municipal limits of a building or a new part of a building or starts to re-erect or make a material alteration in the building or wishes to make or enlarge a well, he has to give notice of such intention to the Board. From what I have stated in regard to the topography of the chabutra it appears to me that this construction could not come within any of the things mentioned in Section 178, in respect of which it was obligatory on a person to give notice to the Municipal Board. I may here mention that Rennett J. took a simitar view to what I have taken of the chabutra in question in the case of -- 'Brijnandan Prosad v. Emperor', AIR 1945 All 232 (A). Eennett J. pointed out that a chabutra does not come within the definition of Section 2(2) unless it could be considered as a part of the house. He doubted whether a chabutra could ever be considered a part of a house.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1