Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.39 seconds)
Namdev Pandurang Panchal vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation Of ... on 16 September, 2005 cites

G.J. Kanga And Anr. vs S.S. Basha on 18 August, 1992

32. Mr. Diwan also relied upon judgment of this Court reported in 1992 Mh. L. J. 1573 G. J. Kanga, Adm. of Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay ¦nd Anr. vs. S. S. Basha. The question in that ¦atter was whether the order passed by the Deputy ¦unicipal Commissioner is an administrative order or ¦uasi judicial order and whether the said order is ¦iable to be reviewed not by the D.M.C. but by the ¦dditional municipal Commissioner. In that case the ¦wner of the structure where he was running a shop ¦ought to replace C.I. sheets. On noticing the ¦onstruction in progress, the BMC issued Stop Work ¦otice to him. He gave reply. Thereafter BMC ¦ssued notice under Section 351 but after hearing @im the action was dropped by BMC and on payment of certain amount as penalty, the structure was regularised. A complaint was made about the same structure and therefore Additional Municipal Commissioner found that fraud has been perpetrated in the previous enquiry and therefore the notice was again issued to the concerned person as to why the earlier order of DMC should not be set aside and structure be demolished under section 351. A.M.C. set aside that order and ordered demolition. The owner therefore filed a suit for declaration. Interim injunction was granted to the plaintiff. BMC challenged that order contending that the DMC's order was an administrative order and it was open to review by the Additional Commissioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Corporation Of Calcutta vs Mulchand Agarwalla on 17 November, 1955

31. Though this judgment of the Gauhati High Court is repeatedly and strenuously relied upon by Mr. Diwan in support of his submission, it cannot be of any help to the plaintiff for the simple reason that in the case before the Gauhati High Court the construction was made by the person upon his land. That is the distinguishing factor in that case and in the present case the plaintiff - appellant is not the owner of the land. Land upon which the suit structure is there, does not belong to him. The owner is before the court as defendant No.2, who has proved his ownership over the land and therefore if the structure is erected on somebody else's land then the judgment of Gauhati High Court cannot be made applicable. It would amount to giving protection to a trespasser, to legalise an illegal act and would be detrimental to the interest of the owner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 26 - S J Imam - Full Document
1   2 Next