Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.43 seconds)
Documents citing K. Sudarsan And Ors. vs The Commissioner, Corporation Of ... on 13 April, 1983

P. V. Lay Kumar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 13 June, 2022

In the case of K.Sudarsan v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras7, a learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras was dealing with the batch of writ petitions seeking mandamus directing the authorities to remove the hawkers and peddlers from Ranganathan Street, Madras 17 and also the pavements to render them free from obstruction for vehicles and pedestrians from access to the petitioners' shops. In that context, after referring several decisions, learned Judge enunciated certain principles regarding the rights of the public over the highways and public streets thus:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - U D Rao - Full Document

Arulmighu Palapattarai vs Pappayee

18.There is no requirement to approach this case from the stand point of right of easement. It is not necessary for the plaintiffs to prove that S.No.42 is the only access to their property. Even assuming that the plaintiffs have an alternate access to their property, that does not mean that the plaintiffs can be deprived of their right to use a public street for ingress and egress to their property. The law on this issue is too well settled and it will be more beneficial to take note of the judgment of this court in K.Sudarsan and others vs. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras and others reported in AIR 1984 MADRAS 292.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

White Horse Communication Network Rep. ... vs The Metropolitan Transport ... on 5 September, 2006

8. A combined reading of the above provisions show that in terms of Section 203 of the Act, all public streets and other appurtenances in the city which were not reserved under the control of the Central or State Government shall vest with the corporation. The corporation shall maintain the public streets as well to make all improvements as are necessary or expedient for the public safety or convenience. The Commissioner may also sanction as may be required for laying out and to make new streets with the special sanction of the Council and the State Government extend or otherwise improve any public street. The expenses for implementation of the decisions of the Council as well as the Commissioner shall be borne by the Corporation in terms of Section 214A of the Act. The Council is empowered to make resolution empowering the Commissioner to manage and control over the public street. A public street in Municipal Corporation shall vest in the Corporation for the purpose of managing and controlling, as has been held by this Court in the judgment (K. Sudarsan and Ors. v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras and Ors.).
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - D Murugesan - Full Document
1   2 Next