Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.34 seconds)The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
Section 44 in The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 [Entire Act]
Section 53 in The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 [Entire Act]
The Architects Act, 1972
R & M Trust vs Koramangala Resi. Vigilance Group & Ors on 19 January, 2005
In "R & M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group", (2005)
3 SCC 91, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to grant relief in a
PIL where the building construction was substantially complete.
The relevant portion reads as follows:
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Others on 18 October, 2000
Similarly, in "Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India",
(2000) 10 SCC 664, the Hon'ble Supreme held:
Rajeev Suri vs Delhi Developement Authority on 18 February, 2019
18. It is true that environmental concerns are significant and
warrant serious consideration. However, the needs of
environmental protection must be balanced against the legitimate
needs of the community at large. A PIL cannot be permitted to
continue for private motives. From the materials on record, it
appears that what commenced as a public interest litigation has,
over time, transformed into a private dispute directed against the
respondent nos.3 and 4. There is no satisfactory explanation from
the petitioner for this selective focus, especially when the petition
ostensibly raises general concerns about illegal constructions
within the respondent no.2's jurisdiction. As repeatedly held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in "Rajeev Suri v. DDA"
Kishor Sundar Shetty vs Shri Abhijit Bangar Commissioner Of ... on 26 September, 2022
16. By Writ Petition No.13864 of 2018, the respondent no.3 had,
inter alia, sought a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent
no.2 to grant the OC. During the pendency of that writ petition,
the present PIL came to be filed. The main issue raised in this PIL
pertains to illegal constructions within the limits of the respondent
no.2 and seeks a direction for it to compile a list of such buildings,
including those occupied without an OC, and thereafter to
demolish the structures or portions thereof that are contrary to
the sanctioned plans. Similar issues were raised in Public Interest
Litigation No.111 of 2022 (Kishore Sundar Shetty vs. Shri Abhijit
Bangar Commissioner of NMMC).
1