Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.38 seconds)The Manipur Municipalities Act,1994.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Muddappa And Ors on 19 July, 1991
(i) There is no dispute that the plot was reserved for cultural centre, garden and swimming pool in the original development plan of 1978 and the modification sought was to convert the purpose of reservation to library and hospital. The open spaces which have been reserved for garden in the approved development plan cannot be converted into sites for civic amenities like hospital, public library etc. This position in law has been well established in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa, . The Supreme Court observed that, one of the main objects of the public parks or playgrounds is the promotion of health of the community by means of ventilation and recreation and it is the preservation of quality of the life of the community that is sought to be protected by means of the regulations governing such reservations. If the respondent No. 4 is allowed to put up a grand library or a hospital, the purpose of public interest which was to be achieved by swimming pool, garden or cultural centre cannot be achieved. It is obvious that neither the Municipal Council nor the State Government has applied its mind to this aspect and more so, the legal position laid down by the Apex Court. The additional affidavit filed by the Municipal Corporation states that the plot has been handed over for educational and cultural purposes.
Vijay Krishna Kumbhar vs The State Of Maharashtra & Others on 15 March, 1999
In this view, we are supported by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumbhar v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (2) BCR 293. It is manifest on the record that the Council/Corporation was acting solely for the private good.
Common Causea Registered Society vs Union Of India & Others on 25 September, 1996
We, therefore, deem it appropriate that the Municipal Council issues a fresh proclamation for allotment of shops on lease in all cases where the lease period of nine years has expired and the Municipal Council undertakes the exercise of fresh allotment of these commercial premises after receiving such applications and by following the procedure as laid down under the Rules of 1983. At the same time, the Municipal Council will be required to examine enhancement of lease premium in respect of all these shops after the initial period of three years from the date of possession granted initially by keeping in mind the requirements of Rule 9(2) and (3) of the Rules of 1983. In case the Municipal Council comes to the conclusion that the lease premium was required to be enhanced for the past years, at the block of every three years, the Municipal Council shall have to take appropriate steps to recover these enhanced premium amounts from the concerned allottees for the period they have been in occupation. Undoubtedly, while undertaking fresh exercise for allotment of these shops the Municipal Council is required to follow the methods set out under Rule 7(1) of the Rules of 1983 and by keeping mind the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 530, and to quote :