Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.86 seconds)Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985
In the case of Olga Tallis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 : AIR 1986 SC 180 the Supreme Court held that a municipality is empowered to cause to be removed encroachments on footpaths or pavements over which the public have a right of passage or access. In this case the Supreme Court also observed that " In the first place, footpaths or pavements are public properties which are intended to serve the convenience of the general public. They are not laid for private use and indeed, their use for a private purpose frustrates the very object for which they are carved out from portions of public streets." The Supreme Court was also dismissing misplaced arguments resting on life and liberty by those who were claiming occupation of public streets. In this regard, the Supreme Court observed that " There is no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the claim of the pavement dwellers to put up constructions on pavements and that of the pedestrians to make use of the pavements for passing and repassing, are competing claims and that, the former should be preferred to the later."
Section 61 in The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [Entire Act]
Municipal Board, Manglaur vs Sri Mahadeoji Maharaj on 24 November, 1964
22. The roads and its side-walks, the patri, are laid for passage only and for no other and the Supreme Court said in the matter of Municipal Board, Mangalaur Vs. Mahadeoji Maharaj AIR 1965 SC 1147, even facilities like a piyao (drinking water kiosk), library or a statue of Mahatma Gandhi cannot be put on a roadside patri.
Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920
Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988
In the case of Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101 : AIR 1989 SC 38, the Supreme Court reiterated the law that to remove an encroachment of a public road is the obligation of a municipality and that an injunction could not be granted to suffer an encroachment of a public place like a street which is meant for the use of the pedestrians.
Sodan Singh Etc. Etc vs New Delhi Municipal Committee & Anr. Etc on 30 August, 1989
In the matter of Sodan Singh Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1989) 4 SCC 155 : AIR 1989 SC 1988 : 1989 All.LJ.1097, the Supreme Court did not permit the plea of life and liberty to be raised, in the context, of carrying on trade or business on a public road. It is in this case that the Supreme Court also held that there can be no fundamental right of a citizen to occupy a particular place where he can squat and engage in trading business.
M/S. Gobind Pershad Jagdish Pershad vs New Delhi Municipal Committee on 14 July, 1993
In the case of Gobind Pershad Jagdish Pershad Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee, (1993) 4 SCC 69: AIR 1993 SC 2313, the Supreme Court extended the public street into the verandas in front of a shop which by long user had been used by the public as a passage. Thus, shopping arcades or verandas adjoining public streets were given the declaration of a public street. Encroachment of such verandas in front of public streets was held as illegal.
Down Mangor Valley, Residents Welfare ... vs Mormugao Municipal Council, Through ... on 8 January, 2002
(f) AIR 2002 Bombay 258 = 2002 (2) Bom.L.R. 564 (Down Mangor Valley Vs. Mormugao Municipal Council):