Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)
Sh. Rafiq Ahmed vs Union Of India on 23 January, 2020 cites

Pankaj Bhardwaj And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 17 October, 2011

The above submissions regarding the sale deed of respondents was also considered and rejected in the case titled Pankaj Bhardwaj v. UOI in LAC no. 3149/16 vide judgment dated 26.08.2017. The said argument of the respondent was not accepted. The respondents cannot go against the Award already been passed by the LAC in view of bar u/Sec. 25 of LA Act that compensation cannot be granted lower than already awarded in the Award.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - S Kant - Full Document

Jawajee Naganatham, Etc. vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Abilabad ... on 29 October, 1982

4. Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer Hence petitioner has demanded enhanced compensation at market value of Rs.5 lakh per sq. mtr. Rs. 15 lakh as value of structure and Rs.25 lakh as severance charges, Rs.10 lakh as cost of fixtures and fittings other than statutory and additional benefits. Vide Ex.PW6/4R2 it is recorded that valuation of super structure could not be completed till the time of making of Award which would be subject matter of supplementary Award.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 426 - Full Document

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 August, 2017

In other words so long as regulations are not framed an occupier of a land or a building cannot be deprived of taking advantage of the proviso to section 14. Pending framing of the Regulations prosecution in respect of a non-conforming user prior to the coming into force of any of the plans, is misconceived. (17) The view that we have taken is reinforced by two earlier decisions in Sarojini Market Shopkeeper Association (Rogd.) another v. Union of India and others, 1964 Plr 1144 and Lal Singh and others v. The Lt. Governor, Delhi and others, .
Supreme Court of India Cites 294 - Cited by 384 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Lal Singh And Ors. vs The Lt. Governor, Delhi And Ors. on 16 July, 1971

14. (18) In case Lal Singh and others (supra) the petitioners challenged the acquisition of their lands and buildings, amongst others, on the ground that their Colony (Shakarpur Extension Colony) was in existence prior to 1959 in which the petitioners had built the residential houses over a large number of plots owned by them and that the aforesaid Colony had been car-marked as a residential area in the Master Plan for Delhi and that in the Draft Zonal Development Plan also, except for a small portion, it had been shown as residential area and that the houses built in the Colony did not in any way violate the land use pattern provided in the Master Plan The precise argument was that both according to the provisions of law contained in section 14 of the Act and the policy announced by the Government from time to time, the built up areas were not to be disturbed even if such areas were not in conformity with the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan. Dealing with the submission pertaining to section 14 of the Act, it was observed that the main part of the section prohibits the user of a land or building in a zone otherwise than in conformity with either the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plan for the zone. But the proviso lays down an exception to the main provision, and states that the previous user to which the land or the building was being put on the date on which such plan came into force can be lawfully continued upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in that behalf. It was observed that it is true that the proviso states that the continuation of the user has to be upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in that behalf, but that does not mean that the exception recognised under the proviso does not operate so long as no regulations are made. The words "upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made in the behalf" in the proviso only enable the Authority concerned to make regulations prescribing terms and conditions for the continuation of the previous user. If regulations are not prescribing such terms and conditions, it only means that the continuation of the user permitted by the proviso would be subject to no terms and conditions. In other words, it was held, a person does not lose the benefit of the proviso if he is otherwise entitled to it, merely because the authority concerned has not chosen to make regulation prescribing terms and conditions for the continuation of the previous user. The concerned authority by closing not to avail of the enabling provision in the proviso, cannot circumvent the rest of the provision in the proviso and deprive the petitioners of the benefit conferred there under.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

The Links, Advertisers And Business ... vs The Commissioner, Corporation Of The ... on 3 December, 1975

(20) Reliance placed on Madras and Southern Maharatta Ry. Co. Ltd. v. Bezwada Municipality ; Links Advertisers and Business Promoters v. Commissioner Corporation of the City of Bangalore, ; and Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subash Chandra Yograj Sinha, , is misplaced, having no bearing on the question under consideration.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 52 - Full Document
1   2 Next