Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Asikali Akbarali Gilani Etc vs Nasirhusain Mahebubbhai Chauhan & Ors on 7 October, 2016

Kapilaben Govindbahi Goswami vs State Of Gujarat on 10 May, 2018

8.1 In   the   case   of  Asikali   Akbarali   Gilani   vs.   Nasirhusain  Mahebubbhai   Chauhan  reported   in  (2016)   10   SCC   799,   more  particularly paras:15 and 16, are since relevant observations, are  reproduced   herein   after,   wherein   Hon'ble   Apex   Court   has   dealt  with a situation regarding the municipal land and has observed that  municipality is a trustee and therefore  should ensure that public  streets are not encroached upon and further municipality   cannot  lease out any portion of public street. Considering the large scale  demolition drive in the area, Hon'ble the Apex Court has directed  the Collector to have case to case examination and by undertaking  such process, if found that structure has been erected after cut­off  date, no right of rehabilitation would ensure to the applicant for  unauthorise   structure   on   the   public   property.   Now  herein   in   the  said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealt with in an issue  where   there   was   lease   to  the   extent   of   896   and  in   that   process  original entries of occupants were with process of law and in that  circumstances   also   the   Hon'ble   Apex   Court   has   held   that,   if   the  occupants   are   found   to   be   after   cut­off   date   then   they   may   be  removed,   whereas,   here   in   a   case   on   hand,   neither   there   is   any  lease nor there is any lawful entry nor any remote right is visible  which   would   entitle   any   protection   to   the   petitioners.   More   so,  learned   advocate   appearing   for   the   petitioners   Mr.Thakkar   has  candidly   submitted   that   there   is   no   right,   title   over   the   land   to  occupy but since several years they are on the land some human  approach   to   be   shown.   But   so   far   as   legal   right   to   occupy   is  concerned, none of the applicants are having any such right and  this Court found that in absence of any lawful authority to occupy  public   property,   no   one   should   be   allowed   to   use,   occupy   or  construct upon it. Simply because the petitioners are residing since  number   of   years   would   not   give   license   to   them   to   continue  unauthorised construction. Hence, in absence of any legal right in  Page 19 of 24 C/SCA/7560/2018 ORDER favour of petitioner, the Court would not incline to issue a writ of  mandamus.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A J Shastri - Full Document

Islamia Ilaignar Narpani Youth Welfare vs The Estate Officer on 2 November, 2023

5. That apart, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent failed to consder the continuous possession of the petitioner over the property for a period of more than fourty years before passing the final orders. Also, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/11 C.R.P. No.2566 of 2023 & C.M.P.Nos.15853 and 21869 of 2023 Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 10 Supreme Court cases 799 [ Asikali Akbarali Gilani and Others Vs. Nasirhusain Mahebubbhai Chauhan and Others], wherein it is held that 'If erection of such unauthorised structures is not conformity with State Policy, then Collector is required to take action as per directions of High Court within two months' .
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

Gouri Saha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 January, 2025

Referring to the decision in Asikali Akbraali Gilani & Ors. vs. Nasirhusain Mahebubbhai Chauhan & Ors., reported in (2016) 10 SCC 799, he submits that since the illegal structures of the appellants have been tolerated for more than 30 years, the respondents should be directed to find an alternative solution, adopting a more humane approach. He submits that a direction be issued to the respondents to restore possession to the appellants or to make arrangements for their rehabilitation.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rameshbhai Hargovandas Modi ­Decd. & vs Mehsana Municipality & on 16 January, 2017

When   the   matter   is   called   out,  learned   advocate,  Shri  Nikhil   Kariel   seeks   permission   to   withdraw   the  present   Second   Appeal   with   a   view   to   avail   alternate  remedy   under   the   provision   of   the   Street   Vendors  (Protection   of   Livelihood   and   Regulation   of   Street  Vending)   Act,   2014   as   well   as   in   light   of   the  observations   made   by   the   Hon'ble   Apex   Court   in   a  judgment   in   case   of  Asikali   Akbarali   Gilani   Vs.  Nasirhusain Mahebubbhai Chauhan & Ors., reported in AIR  Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sat Aug 12 11:07:05 IST 2017 C/SA/205/2016 ORDER 2016 SC 4766. Permission is granted. The present Second  Appeal stands disposed of accordingly without prejudice  to the rights and contentions of the appellants. It is  also clarified and goes without saying that as and when  such   application   is   made,   same   may   be   considered   in  accordance with law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R H Shukla - Full Document
1