Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)

Yogendra Pal And Others vs Municipality, Bhatinda And Another on 15 July, 1994

(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the corresponding provisions of Section 203(1)(c) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 for compulsory transfer of the land to the Municipal Committees 26 /33 ::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2023 13:02:14 ::: Shubham Talle judgment in WP 10400-2019 (final).doc without payment of compensation, were valid. Careful reading of the said judgment, specially para 8 relied upon by the Petitioner, shows that the Apex Court has considered the purport of word 'transferred' against the word 'acquired'. The Apex Court has held in the context of Section 192(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 that the transfer is nothing short of acquisition divesting the land owner of all his rights as owner of the land. The question of back-tracking from written assurance given by the developer so far as the D.P. road is concerned, was not under consideration in the said judgment and therefore, in our considered view, the said judgment will not advance the case of the Petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 29 - P B Sawant - Full Document

K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 9 August, 2011

50. So far as the last judgment relied upon by the Petitioner in the matter of K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) is concerned, the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the said judgment is totally misplaced, in as much as the ratio of that judgment of the Apex Court is related to 'invalidation of the 31 /33 ::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2023 13:02:14 ::: Shubham Talle judgment in WP 10400-2019 (final).doc legislation on the ground of delegation of essential legislative functions or on the ground of conferring un-guided, un-controlled and vague powers upon the delegate without taking into account preamble of act as also other provisions of the statute'. In that case the constitutional validity of Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition & Transfer) Act, 1996 and legal validity of Section 110 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 were under consideration. The facts of this case are not even remotely close to the facts of that judgment, and therefore this judgment also does not help the Petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 156 - Cited by 232 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Vrajlal Jinabhai Patel, Since Deceased ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 29 August, 2002

In the case of Vrajlal Jinabai Patel and Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) once again the issue of acquisition of open space was involved and in that context, the coordinate bench of this Court had held that the title in the open space is not transferred to the Municipal Council merely on the passing of lay-out and acquisition of open spaces is not contemplated under Section 183 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965. In the present case, there is no acquisition of open space involved in the matter and therefore the said judgment also does not advanced the case of the Petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - D G Karnik - Full Document
1   2 Next