Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 98 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Municipal Board, Manglaur vs Sri Mahadeoji Maharaj on 24 November, 1964

Municipal Board vs J.K. Industries Ltd. on 24 July, 2002

It has exclusive right to manage and control the surface of the soil and so much of the soil below and of the space above the surface as is necessary to enable it to adequately maintain the street as a street. It has also a certain property in the soil of the street which would enable it as owner to bring a possessory action against trespassers. Subject to the rights of the Municipality and the public to pass and repass on the highway, the owner of the soil in general remains the occupier of it and, therefore, he can maintain an action for trespass against any member of the public who acts in excess of his right. On this conclusion, the Court further held that the Municipality cannot put any structure which it intended to erect on the vacant site as it cannot be said that they were necessary for the maintenance or user of the road as a public highway. Such act was unauthorised of the municipality.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rasheed Parakkal vs The Secretary, Kottilangadi Grama ... on 28 June, 2021

SUNIL THOMAS,Judge dpk W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 18 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21191/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 29.03.2007 BEARING NO.947/2007 OF MAKKARAPPARAMBU SRO. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 23.06.2007 BEARING NO.2071/2007 OF MAKKARAPPARAMBU SRO. EXHIBIT P3 TO P3C TRUE COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATES DATED 21.08.2020 IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENCE DATED 07.07.2020 BEARING NO.259/2020-2021/A- 7/2434/20 OBTAINED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.32BOFPR4350J1ZW OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE AUTO RICKSHAWS ILLEGALLY PARKED IN FRONT OF THE EXHIBIT P3 BUILDING. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT IN MUNICIPAL BOARD V. MAHADEOJI (AIR 1965 SC 1147) PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Thomas - Full Document

Godavari Bhai vs Cannanore Municipality, Cannanore on 16 August, 1984

9. Vesting of a public street in the Municipal Council is not absolute. It is only for the limited purpose of preservation and maintenance as a public street is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in the Municipal Board, Manglaur v. Mahadeoji Maharaj (AIR 1965 SC 11471. In that case, the Manglaur Municipality was seeking to erect a structure on a vacant site adjoining a public road for the purpose of installing a statue of Mahatma Gandhi and also to put up two rooms on either side for piyo and library.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

M.A. Pal Mohammed And Ors. vs R.K. Sadarangani And Ors. on 9 August, 1984

Such portions, as pointed out by Supreme Court in Municipal Board v. Mahadeoji , are required for the maintenance or user of it as a road or public highway, and hence structures cannot be put upon them to cause hindrance to public. Being fully aware of how a public street is composed of, the right to lease out had been confined under the Act only for portions which are earmarked as roadsides or street margins. Hence, the proposal made in Dec. 1980, to earmark- portions of roadsides for hawkers, is in order.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Sarita Gupta vs Mcd on 18 September, 2019

In citing the above case however, the respondent misses the point that in the present case, there is no evidence much less proof, of dedication of the subject land for public use or of the long use thereof by the public, in order for it to be included as part of the public street. In fact, it is the respondent‟s own case that the public street had an RoW of 65 feet, which the respondent now seeks to widen to 100 feet by including the subject land within the public street. The respondent is seeking to demolish the dwelling houses or subsume vacant land abutting the dwelling houses, owned by or belonging to the petitioners, to widen the road. A public street vests in the municipal corporation by operation of law ; but the subject land is not part of the public street and therefore does not vest in the Municipal Corporation.
Delhi High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 1 - A J Bhambani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next