Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Chimanlal Estate Owners' Association ... on 18 December, 1993 cites

Kikabhai Ukabhai Patel And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 2 March, 1990

There is nothing in the Rule to spell out that the modification must be proposed within 12 months. If that be so, the provision under Rule 7 cannot also be considered as mandatory. Even apart from this fact, a Bench of this High Court had an occasion to consider Rule 7 in the case of Kikabhai v. State reported in 1988 (1) GLR 569. In that case, a Bench of this High Court observed that in cases where the State decides to introduce substantial modifications in the proposed development plan suo motu, the requirement of finishing such exercise within a fixed time limit is not found anywhere in the said section.
Gujarat High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Basheshar Nath vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Delhi & ... on 19 November, 1958

The learned Counsel also relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hans Mutter ofNurenburg v. Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta ; Baseshar Nath v. CIT, Delhi ; Mangal Singh v. Union of India D. Nagaraj v. State ofKarnataka order to show who can challenge the impugned action, and in support of the proposition that the Courts do not examine the questions which are only academic and where it is not possible for the Court to grant any relief.
Supreme Court of India Cites 95 - Cited by 354 - Full Document

Chimanlal Estate Owners Association vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And ... on 17 December, 1985

However, we may refer to a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Chimanlal Estate v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, [1986(2)] XXVII(2) GLR 1323, on which strong reliance was placed by Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Advocate for the petitioners. In that case N. H. Bhatt, J. (as he then was) in para 9 of the report took the view that when the State Government took lot of time in sanctioning the draft development plan with modifications which were suo motu published by the State of Gujarat, the plan had lapsed. However, before the learned single Judge, it was not contended on behalf of the authority that on the scheme of the Act, there was no time prescribed for sanctioning the modified draft development plan after suo motu inviting objections for substantial modifications as per Section 17(1)(a)(ii) proviso read with Section 17(c) of the Act. As such a contention was never canvassed, the learned Judge had no occasion and opportunity to deal with the same. Consequently, the ratio of the aforesaid case cannot be of any avail to the petitioners. The limited point urged before him was whether the period of limitation prescribed for sanctioning of the plan as per Rule 7 was directory or mandatory. The said decision, therefore, proceeded on the assumption that there was a time limit prescribed for such an exercise. We have already shown earlier that once the State Government suo motu seeks to modify the draft development plan and when modifications are of substantial nature and when objections are invited by the State Government itself, there is no period of limitation prescribed by the legislature or by the Rule making authority for completing such exercise. In these circumstances, the very assumption which was made before the learned single Judge by the learned Advocate for the respondents who tried to support such exercise was, with respect, unjustified and, therefore, the aforesaid decision is of no avail to the petitioners. It must, therefore, be held that the final conclusion to which N.H. Bhatt, J. reached on facts of that case about lapse of the plan is contraindicated by the scheme of Section 17 of the Act and has to be held, with respect, as incorrect
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1