Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.31 seconds)

State Of Karnataka & Ors vs Narasimhamurthy & Ors on 11 August, 1995

In State of Karnataka v. Narasimhamurthy [ 1995 (5) SCC 524 : JT (1995) 6 SC 375 SCC(p) 526, para 7 : JT at p. 378, para 7), this Court held that right to shelter is a fundamental right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. To make the right meaningful to the poor, the State has to provide facilities and opportunity to build houses. Acquisition of the land to provide house sites to the poor houseless is a public purpose as it is the constitutional duty of the State to provide house sites to the poor
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 24 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Kasireddy Papaiah (Died) And Ors. vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... on 25 November, 1974

The ratio of Kasireddy Papaiah case 1975 AIR(AP) 269 : 1975 (1) APLJ 70] was quoted with approval by a three-Judge Bench in Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [ 1984 (4) SCC 308 : 1985 (1) SCR 588]. The delay by the officials was held to be not a ground to set at naught the power to exercise urgency clause in both the above decisions. It would thus be clear that housing accommodation to the Dalits and Tribes is in acute shortage and the State has undertaken as its economic policy under planned expenditure to provide shelter to them on a war footing, in compliance with the constitutional obligation undertaken as a member of the UNO to the resolutions referred to hereinbefore
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 6 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

State Of U.P. Etc vs Smt. Pista Devi & Ors on 12 September, 1986

In Pista Devi case [ 1986 (4) SCC 251 ] this Court while considering the legality of the exercise of the power under Section 17(4) exercised by the State Government dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A for acquiring housing accommodation for planned development of Meerut, had held that providing housing accommodation is national urgency of which court should take judicial notice. The pre-notification and post- notification delay caused by the officer concerned does not create a cause to hold that there is no urgency. Housing conditions of Dalits all over the country continue to be miserable even till date and is a fact of which courts are bound to take judicial notice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 178 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Deepak Pahwa Etc vs Lt. Governer Of Delhi And Ors on 22 August, 1984

In Deepak Pahwa case [ 1984 (4) SCC 308 : 1985 (1) SCR 588] this Court had that very often person interested in the land reposed to be acquired may make representations to the authorities concerned against the proposed writ petition that is bound to result in multiplicity of enquiries, communications and discussions leading invariably to delay in the execution of even urgent projects. Very often delay makes the problem more and more acute and increases urgency of the necessity for acquisition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 105 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next