Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.49 seconds)Sriram Pasricha vs Jagannath & Ors on 24 August, 1976
A three-Judge Bench of this Court has held in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath , that a co-owner owns every part of the composite property along with others. The following statement of law has been made by their Lordships:
West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993
Krishna Kali Mallik vs Babulal Shaw And Ors. on 2 March, 1964
In Krishna Kali Mallick v. Babulal Shaw and Ors. , it has been held:-
Section 397 in The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000
18. The aforementioned decision of the Apex Court has also been followed by the Supreme Court in Kochkunja Nair v. Koshy Alexander and Ors., wherein the law has been laid down in the following terms :-
Kumuda Sundari Properties (Private) ... vs Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. on 25 June, 1985
"The learned Judge, had, however, declined to quash the sanction already granted in favour of the landlord. On the special facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, Suhas Chandpa Sen, J. had directed the Commissioner of Calcutta Corporation to give the tenant an opportunity of being heard in support of his case. In case the Commissioner was satisfied, the landlord who was respondent No. 7 did not have exclusive fight to erect a building on the land in dispute, the Commissioner might exercise his powers under Rule 62B Schedule XVI of the Calcutta Municipal Act and cancel the permission to erect according to the plan. We are unable to consider the said decision of Suhas Chandra Sen, J. as an authority for the proposition that in every proceeding under Rule 62B Schedule XVI or corresponding Section 397 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, tenants or tenants who do not even claim any right to erect upon the holding, in question ought to be given opportunity of hearing. The Municipal Authorities under Rule 62B or Section 397 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act have only a limited power to cancel sanction."
Om Prakash Gupta And Ors. vs State Of A.P. Rep. By Its Secretary, ... on 30 December, 1996
"I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Bankatlal Mandhani. He vehemently contended that as held by this Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997(2) ALD 115, any member of a public can approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and seek appropriate reliefs. It is well settled that a neighbour who is aggrieved by the construction allegedly in contravention of the building plan has no locus standi to question the same in a public law remedy. If the neighbour is aggrieved with reference to the deprivation of corporal rights as well as incorporeal rights deprivation of property, violation of right to privacy etc., the only remedy is by way of Civil suit for declaration of easementary rights and consequential injunction. The reasons are two. In either way, whether a person is deprived of the property due to encroachment or a person's right to privacy is violated by virtue of illegal constructions preventing free light and air into the house; these are matters for elaborate evidence. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution decides the matters based on affidavits and it is well neigh impossible to dwell into questions of fact which are in serious dispute. Therefore, the judgment of this Court relied on by Sri Mandhani which categorically states that the right of the public to approach the Court under Article 226 is acceded, cannot be extended where a private person is aggrieved by the actions of another private person that top when no proper material is placed before the Court that the construction made is gross subverting the public interest.
Rajatha Enterprises vs S.K. Sharma & Ors on 3 February, 1989
As held by the Supreme Court in Rajatha Enterprises v. S.K. Sharma, , all illegal constructions need not be demolished. The acid test to be applied is whether Illegal constructions if any grossly subvert public interest and grossly contrary to the public interest. In the said case, the Supreme Court even regularised huge extent of floor space which was admittedly contrary to FSI Regulations. In this connection, it is useful to extract the following passage from the above judgment:
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 November, 1988
"....... in the absence of any evidence of public safety being in any manner endangered or the public or a section of the public being in any manner inconvenienced by reason of the construction of the building, whatever may be the personal grievance of the 1st respondent, the High Court was not justified, at the instance of the 1st respondent claiming himself to be a champion of the public cause, in ordering the demolition of any part of the building, particularly when there is no evidence whatsoever of dishonesty or fraud or negligence on the part of the builder. See the principles stated by Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J. in Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India, , and by Khalid, J., in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal ". Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he can approach this Court under Article 226 of Constitution is devoid of any merits."