Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.23 seconds)Telangana Town-Planning Act, 1920
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Friends Colony Development Committee vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 1 November, 2004
7. Sri. P.Jayasankar, learned Special Government
Pleader raised contentions that the zonal classification
envisaged in the DTP scheme formulated under the Town
Planning Act is intended only for providing spatial planning
and regulations and it does not involve any development
which need acquisition of land. Referring to the decision of
the hon'ble Supreme Court in Friends Colony
Development Committee V. State of Orissa and others
(2004 (8) SCC 733) it is contended that although
development plans restrict freedom of individual property
W.P.(c) No.7078/2012 -7-
owners to use their property, merely for that reason it
cannot be termed as an arbitrary and unreasonable
restriction. Private interest in such cases stands
subordinated to public good. Power to plan development of
cities and to regulate building activity therein was upheld
as a power vested on the State and it cannot be said as an
infraction to the rights of private owners.
M.F. Francis And Ors. vs Chalakudy Municipality And Ors. on 7 September, 1999
Referring to a
Full Bench decision of this court in Francis V. Chalakudy
Municipality (1999(3) KLT 560) it is contended that
merely because there is failure for acquisition of land
within the time limit prescribed in a scheme notified under
Section 12 of the Town Planning Act, it will not lapse.
Hence it is argued that the contention of the petitioner that
the scheme has not been notified and implemented is of no
consequence.
Sayeesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2005
8. Learned Special Government Pleader further
pointed out that in Sayeesh Kumar V. State of Kerala
(2005 (4) KLT 1027) it is categorically held that the Town
Planning Act does not confer any power on the Government
W.P.(c) No.7078/2012 -8-
to tamper with an approved development scheme and that
no power is vested on the Government to grant individual
exemption. Hence it is contended that the denial of permit
on the basis of the zonal classification is absolutely legal
and justified.
M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 20 April, 2005
In this context the learned counsel for the
petitioner had also brought to my attention a Division Bench
decision of this court in Gopalakrishnan V. State of
Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 317). It is held therein that, if in an
area earmarked as residential zone, large number of
constructions for commercial purposes were permitted,
whether under orders issued by the Government or not,
then the only sensible thing for the Corporation to do is to
take a realistic approach by not rendering the area any
longer as a residential zone and request the Government to
make suitable changes in the master plan to make it in
conformity with the ground reality. It is pointed out that, in
W.P.(c) No.7078/2012 -14-
the case at hand the spatial regulation (spatial planning)
envisaged years back through the DTP scheme has became
unworkable, because a lot of constructions has been
permitted contrary to the spatial regulation. Hence it is
contended that, at any rate the zonal regulations envisaged
under the town planning scheme which has not been
implemented nor approved or notified, cannot be sustained.
Poovanpattil Areekattu Abdu Rahiman vs The Malappuram Municipality on 18 June, 2008
A Division
Bench of this court in Abdu Rehiman V. District
Collector, Malappuram (2009 (4) KLT 485 it is held
that, even when a decision of a Division Bench is stayed by
the Supreme Court, the single Judges of this court are
bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench, as it
W.P.(c) No.7078/2012 -15-
continues to be a binding precedent for them.
Article 243 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Raju S. Jethmalani & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 5 May, 2005
In the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju S.
Jethmalani V. State of Maharashtra and others
(2005 (11) SCC 222) it is held that, though land belonging
to private persons can be included in development plans,
unless the land is acquired by the State Government or by
the Municipal Corporation to effectuate the public purposes
such development plan cannot be implemented and the land
owner cannot be deprived of using the property for any
other purposes. When the Government or Municipal
Corporation fails to acquire the land, the private persons
cannot be deprived of the use of the land, is the dictum.