Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Emperor vs Parshottam Kandu on 22 March, 1935

Municipal Board vs Om Prakash Kabari on 1 November, 1971

9. The reasoning of the learned Magistrate that as the third and fourth storeys did not touch the public place or the public lane at any place and the distance of the third and fourth storeys from the public lane was substantial, no notice under Section 178 (1) of the Municipalities Act was necessary, is without any merits, Sub-section (2) of Section 178 provides that in the case of a building. the notice referred to in Sub-section (1) would only be necessary if the building abuts on. or is adjacent to, a public street or property vested in Government, or in the Board. It would. however be necessary in respect of all buildings if a bye-law in respect. of the area in which the building is situated provides for it. In the case of Emperor v. Parshottam AIR 1935 All, 986 a Bench of this Court held that "adjoining a public street or place," would mean "actually touching the public street or place" whereas "adjacent to such street" merely means "near such street." In the present case there was no dispute that the building was near the public lane. It is meaningless to contend that the third and fourth storeys did not touch the public lane.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nasiruddin vs Emperor on 15 October, 1942

5. Reading Sub-section (3) with this Sub-section (5), it is contended that Sub-section (3) covers the case only of a person who is not already in the wrong. In order to get the advantage of Sub-section (3) an applicant must, first of all, make a valid application to the Board. Secondly, he must wait for the expiry of a period of one month and after that he must make a written communication drawing the attention of the Board to the omission or neglect to pass an order and thereafter he must wait for a further period of 15 days. If this were not the intention of the Legislature and the true interpretation of the Act it would be open to a strong-minded applicant to start his constructions at once and then, if, for example, the proper persons on the Board had fallen ill or by any other means it became impossible for the Board to deal with his application, to carry out his constructions, serve a notice on the Board, and thus put up a new building in defiance of the provisions of the Act at the expense only of a fine for an offence under Section 185. I am clear that that cannot be supposed to have been the intention of the Act. There is, however, only one case upon the point which mentions the point at all directly. The only case of this Court is Emperor v. Parshottam Kandu ('35) 22 A.I.R. 1935 ALL. 986, in which attention was drawn to the fact that under Section 180(5) it is incumbent on a person who has given notice under Section 178, not to commence any work of which notice has been given until sanction has been given or is to be deemed to have been given by the Board. This sub-section does not require that the notice under Section 178 must be such notice as was absolutely necessary to be given. Where the notice has been given under that section, Sub-section (5) is applicable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1