Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.62 seconds)Telangana Town-Planning Act, 1920
Section 51 in Telangana Town-Planning Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976
Section 22A in Telangana Town-Planning Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
B.Krishna H.Sawant vs Sangli,Miraj&Kupwad City M.Corp on 23 February, 2005
In this connection, our attention was invited to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Balakrishna H. Sawant v. Sangli, Miraj & Kupwad Municipal Corpn. wherein under an identical situation under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, this Court quashed the reservation in respect of the land owned by a private person. In that case final development plan was published reserving land for a high school and playground owned by the private person. The grievance of the appellant was that the State had not taken any steps to acquire the land within the stipulated statutory period, therefore, the reservation had lapsed. The State Government also admitted that the reservation had lapsed and it had no power to condone the delay. However, the High Court took the view that since the Corporation has taken appropriate steps to acquire the land in question so as to give effect to the reservation, the same cannot be said to have lapsed. The matter came up before this Court by way of special leave petition. The respondent Corporation took the stand that the Corporation has no money for the construction of the high school and playground and therefore, the Corporation does not need the subject land. In this background, this Court set aside the order of the High Court and quashed the reservation in respect of the land in question owned by the appellant and allowed the appeal. Similar is the position in this case also. Since the Government and the Municipal Corporation expressed their inability to acquire the land because of lack of funds, the appellants cannot be deprived of the use of the land. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court by the orders dated 4.9.1997 and 8.9.1999 cannot be sustained and both are liable to be set aside.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Muddappa And Ors on 19 July, 1991
42. With regard to the reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust v. S.P. Mudappa , by the counsel for petitioner, suffice it to say that in the case of Raju S. Jethmalani, the Supreme court has held that the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 which was under consideration in Bangalore Medical Trust and the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 are not pari materia. For what has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Raju H. Jethmalani, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Medical Trust does not help the case of the petitioner while considering the modification of the development plan under Section 37 of the Town Planning Act.