Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (2.95 seconds)
Documents citing Sunil Kumar & Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority Through: ... on 31 January, 2018

Lalwati & Ors vs D D A (Delhi Development Authority) & Anr on 11 May, 2018

6. There is merit in the contention urged by the learned senior counsel for Delhi Development Authority. The writ petition is not maintainable in view of the remedy of appeal under Public Premises Act. That apart, there is inordinate delay in approaching this Court. The orders of the Estate Officer have attained finality. This case is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in LPA 479/2013 titled Sunil Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority, decided on 31st January, 2018.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - J R Midha - Full Document

Shri Roshan Lal vs D.D.A (Delhi Development Authority) on 8 March, 2022

6. It further transpires from the record that various other writ petitions by members of the Society asserting similar rights came to be preferred before this Court seeking a restraint against the respondents from dispossessing cultivators and occupants who had been members of the Society from the land in question. The challenge mounted on identical lines formed part of a batch of writ petitions led by Sunil Kumar and another vs. Delhi Development Authority6. The Court upon considering the challenge as raised proceeded to hold thus:-
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Roshanara Club Ltd vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 September, 2023

18.1 Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sunil Kumar's case (supra) where court was of the view that Suhas H. Pophle's case (supra) was applicable to cases where the tenancies had been created by private persons in respect of private properties, though subsequently acquired by public corporations. For ready reference para 51 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below:
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raj Rani vs Dda & Ors. on 25 September, 2024

(ii) he deals in purchase or sale of immovable properties either as principal or as agent in the Signature Not Verified W. P. (C) 11903/2009 Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD Page 12 of 21 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:25.09.2024 18:00:20 Rule, 1973. It is a stark fact that the petitioner was not a party in the aforesaid CWP No. 4202/2001, as well as in WP(C) No. 9940/2006 by which this Court directed the society to take over the possession of the flat from the present petitioner in terms of order dated 25.08.2009. The aforesaid decision was made without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who by all accounts undisputedly has been the bona fide purchaser of the flat in question consequent upon the NOC issued by the Society in her favour, pursuant to which the Conveyance Deed was executed and registered on 13.04.2004. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Dey v. DDA9 in an almost similar factual backdrop held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document

Hukmo Devi vs . Delhi Development Authority on 2 February, 2019

12. The Division Bench of our own High Court has been pleased to delve on the issue in detail in respect of the same land in a case titled as Sunil Kumar & Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority in LPA 479/2013 along with various other 36 LPAs and 5 Writ Petitions vide its own order dt.31­01­2018 with identical issues involved, the Hon'ble High Court has declared the occupants as unauthorized occupants and defined unauthorized occupants as any person including those, who had entered into the public premises Page No. 6 /8 PPA/02/15 Hukmo Devi Vs. Delhi Development Authority under an authority given to him, but the said authority has either expired or has been determined. It has been clearly held that on determination of the lease by efflux of time or otherwise, the appellants and writ petitioners became unauthorized occupants occupying the government land.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar & Others vs . Estate Officer, Dda on 2 February, 2019

11. The Division Bench of our own High Court has been pleased to delve on the issue in detail in respect of the same land in a case titled as Sunil Kumar & Another Vs. Delhi Development Authority in LPA 479/2013 along with various other 36 LPAs and 5 Writ Petitions vide its own order dt.31­01­2018 with identical issues involved, the Hon'ble High Court has declared the occupants as unauthorized occupants and defined unauthorized occupants as any person including those, who had entered into the public premises under an authority given to him, but the said authority has either expired or has been determined.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next