Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)
Smt. Raj Pati Devi vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 September, 2011 cites

Smt. Ramawati Devi & Others vs Agra Development Authority Thru. ... on 7 July, 2010

During the cross­examination of PW1, it has been brought­forth that at the time of survey, the plaintiff had gone to see her ailing mother in Distt. Gonda, UP and had returned back after one month and she was informed about that the survey had been conducted by DDA, by the other residents of the area. Merely because the plaintiff was not present at the site when the survey was Smt. Rajpati Devi vs. DDA 11/20 Suit No. 1231/2006 conducted, it cannot be implied that she is not entitled to an alternative allotment. Merely because a particular member of the family is not present at the visit by the official, it cannot be contended that the such a person does not reside in the jhuggi.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sudama Singh & Others vs Government Of Delhi & Anr. on 11 February, 2010

At this stage, reliance is placed on the latest judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Sudama Singh & Ors vs. Government of Delhi & Anr., 168 (2010) Delhi Law Times 218 (DB) bearing similar facts wherein it was held by Hon'ble High Court that it is not uncommon that when a survey team arrives at a jhuggi camp, some or the other member may not be found there. By merely stopping with that single visit, and not finding a particular member of that family, it may not be concluded that no such member resides in that jhuggi. Such an exercise, if it has to be meaningful, has to be undertaken either at the time when all the members of the family are likely to be found. Alternatively, there should be repeated visits by the survey team over a period of time with proper prior announcement.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 25 - A P Shah - Full Document

Shanta Bhagati W/O Late Shri Makhan Lal ... vs Delhi Development Authority, Through ... on 18 January, 2006

Smt. Rajpati Devi vs. DDA 18/20 Suit No. 1231/2006 Further even in the judgment relied upon by the plaintiff in the parallel case of Shanta Prasad & Ors. vs. DDA bearing suit no. 15/01 passed by Ld. Civil Judge Sh. Ajay Pandey dated 01.03.2005, the similarly placed plaintiff therein were alloted 18 sq. meters of plot and the said judgment is admittedly not set aside as yet. Further judicial notice can be taken of the fact that concept of election I­card came after the year 1990 in India. If the aforesaid criteria is followed then none of the evictees would be entitled to alternative accommodation. Further as is already stated, DDA has not proved any policy of the department to show that those having documentary proof post 1990 year shall be awarded 12.5 sq. meter and not 18 sq. meter of alternative plot.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress vs Staet Of M.P. & Ors on 6 April, 2011

In the latest case of Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 5 SCC, it has been emphasized by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "no functionary of the State or public authority has an absolute or unfettered discretion. The very idea of unfettered discretion is totally incompatible with the doctrine of equality enshrined in the Constitution and is an antithesis to the concept of the rule of law."
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 167 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1