Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)
Building Operation Controlling ... vs Vijay Kumar And Another on 16 March, 2022 cites

Dipak Kumar Mukherjee vs Kolkata Mun.Corp.& Ors on 8 October, 2012

13. The Apex Court in 'Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkota Municipal Corporation and Others, AIR 2013 SC 927', while dealing with a similar issue regarding raising of construction in violation of the sanctioned building plan held that such un-authorized constructions of building not only distroys the concept of a building plan but also places unbearable burden on basic civil amenities provided by the public authorities and constructions of such a nature are hazardous for public. It is, therefore, imperative to demolish such construction and to impose adequate penalty on the wrongdoer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 112 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Priyanka Estates I'National P.Ltd. & ... vs State Of Assam & Ors on 3 December, 2009

In 'Priyanka Estates International (P) Limited and Others v. State of Assam, (2010) 2 SCC 27,' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has very clearly laid down that un-lawful constructions are against public interest and hazardous to safety of occupiers and residents and, if constructions are in absolute violation of sanctioned or approved plan, the demolition is the necessary consequence and the courts should not approve of such illegal activities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 50 - D Verma - Full Document

M/S Royal Parasdise Hotel (P) Ltd vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 25 August, 2006

In'M/s. Royal Paradise Hotel (P) Limited v. State of Haryana and Others, (2006) 7 SCC 597,' the Apex Court observed that defiance of law should not be rewarded. In the said case, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had raised construction in defiance of statutory provisions. The subsequent purchaser sought compounding and condoning of the violations. The Court held that such permission has to be rejected as compounding of un- authorized constructions raised in violation of the provisions of the Act and the sanctioned plan, distroys the concept of town planning.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 55 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1