Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Shri J.P. Gupta vs Union Of India And Others on 5 December, 2008
The defendants have also proved a letter for the year
1988 Ex. DW1/3 whereby the Station Head Quarters had already
revoked various letters issued with regard to the suit property in view
of the case titled as J. P. Gupta vs. UOI bearing suit no. 464/1983.
Thus the plea of the plaintiff regards the use of passage has been
R. S. Vaish vs. UOI & Ors. 13/16
Suit No. 398/2007
rendered as baseless.
Rajinder Kakkar And Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority on 3 November, 1993
Further reliance is also placed in the case of Rajender
Kakkar & Ors. vs. DDA 1994 I Delhi 432, and Bakshi Ram vs.
DDA 1993 (32) DRJ wherein it has been held that
"courts should not grant any injunction or
relief which will have the result of permitting
R. S. Vaish vs. UOI & Ors. 14/16
Suit No. 398/2007
or protecting the continued illegal possession
of public land".
Bakshi Ram vs Delhi Development Authority on 1 February, 1995
Further reliance is also placed in the case of Rajender
Kakkar & Ors. vs. DDA 1994 I Delhi 432, and Bakshi Ram vs.
DDA 1993 (32) DRJ wherein it has been held that
"courts should not grant any injunction or
relief which will have the result of permitting
R. S. Vaish vs. UOI & Ors. 14/16
Suit No. 398/2007
or protecting the continued illegal possession
of public land".
Premji Ratansey Shah And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 July, 1994
The said law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court even in the case of Premji Rattansay Shah & Ors. vs. UOI &
Ors JT 1994 (6) SCC 85. Just because the plaintiff has averred in
the plaint that he has acquired easementary right, does not grant him
any right on Government land.
1