Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. And Anr. on 27 July, 1987

Dr. B.L. Wadhera vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 23 August, 2004

14. It is in view of sub-clause (b) of clause 1 of Section 507 of DMC Act exemption was granted from certain provisions of this Act, which were indicated in the notification of 1963. However, in view of sub clause (a) of clause (1) of Section 507 of the Act, when areas have been included in and form part of the urban areas, the Notification of 1963 shall cease to operate and the exemption so granted will automatically come to an end from the date of the notification. It is in view of this all the provisions contained in Chapter XVI of DMC Act will be applicable and it is futile to say that Sections 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 342 and 347 of DMC Act are not applicable in these areas. Therefore, it is very clear that in view of the aforesaid position o e has to follow the procedure for erection of the building as indicated under the Act. The Division Bench judgment in Dalmia Dairy (supra) would apply to only those Lal Dora areas covered by 1963 notification and which are not covered by subsequent notications.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Delhi. In Case Titled B.L.Wadhera (Dr.) vs . Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors Cited As on 20 November, 2011

28. Similarly the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in case titled Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. and Anr. 32 (1987) Delhi Law times 390 had the occasion to deal with section 507 (b) (i) . In this case, the Hon'ble High Court had gone to the extent of holding that being unable to agree with the Govt. that the notification dated 24.8.63 only applies to the village abadies as defined in the revenue records (FIRNI) which were in existence at the time when the notification dated 24.8.63 was gazetted and it does not applied to the extended village abadi. The Hon'ble High court opined that the notification dated 24.8.63 is CHALLAN NO.407400 M/s Aditya Furniture 19 of a general nature and it applies to all the rural areas as lie within the village abadies as defined in the revenue records. The court declined to give the notification dated 24.8.63 a restricted meaning and held that the said notification applies to the extended village abadies as well.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harpal Singh & Anr. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 21 December, 2012

3. Learned counsel for appellant had placed reliance upon decisions in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun, Through its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar and Anr., (2004) 2 SCC 283; Rameshwar Solanki vs. Union of India, AIR 1995 Delhi 358; Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs and Others, (2005) 12 SCC 1; Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village, Nizamabad District, A.P. vs. Nookala Rajamallu and Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 334; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr., (2008) 14 SCC 745; Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710; Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs. Pran Sukh and Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 175; Trishala Jain and Another vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another, (2011) 6 SCC 47; Kapil Mehra (Major General) & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., 176 (2011) DLT 361; Hari Chand vs. Union of India, 91(2001) DLT 602 (DB); Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. and Anr., 32(1987) DLT 390; National Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Jagga Singh (Deceased) Through LRs and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 74, to contend that the potentiality aspect has been ignored in the impugned judgment and in the light of the afore- referred decisions, while taking into consideration the potentiality aspect of the acquired land in question the reasonable market value of the acquired land would not be less than ` 6 lakhs per bigha which ought to be granted to the appellant.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - S Gaur - Full Document

Sh. Ram Lal vs Sh. Lal Singh And Another on 22 February, 2010

Plaintiff in his evidence admitted that suit property is situated within Lal Dora of the village. Counsel for defendant no. 2 while relying upon the case law MCD vs. Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. 32 (1987) DLT 390 argued that building bye laws are not applicable upon the constructions being raised in Lal Dora area so defendant was not required to obtain any prior permission or sanctioned plan from MCD before raising any construction. Admittedly defendant no. 2 had not obtained any sanctioned site plan from defendant no. 1 ever.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ritu Sahu Jain vs Ashok Sardana And Others on 14 September, 2016

14. Rule 25(1)(C)(i), as noticed above stipulates that a person would not be eligible for membership of a cooperative society if he owns a residential house or a plot of land for construction of a residential house, either in his own name, or in the name of his spouse or dependent children. The petitioner certainly did not own a residential house but was the owner of a plot of land located in extended lal dora of village Kapashera, measuring 1000 square meters. The use of the expression "a plot of land for construction of a residential house" in the aforesaid clause of Rule 25 would mean, and in simple language refers to, land on which a residential house was/is intended to be or could be constructed as per law. Residential W.P. (C) No. 8435/2005 Page 13 of 18 buildings can be constructed in the lal dora and extended lal dora. (see Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. and Anr, (1987) 32 DLT 390 (DB) , Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Dalmia Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2002) 62 DRJ 1 (FB) and order dated 23rd August 2004 in CM No. 6904/2004 in Writ Petition (C) No. 2710/1998, B.L. Wadhera versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.) The petitioner does not dispute the said position or that the petitioner could have constructed a residential building on the plot of land in question, after the same was purchased vide sale deed dated 5th July, 1989. The petitioner claims that a commercial building and not a residential house was constructed on the plot of land in question and, therefore, the disqualification under Rule 25(1)(C)(i) is not attracted.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Khanna - Full Document
1