Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.20 seconds)Telangana Town-Planning Act, 1920
Section 12 in Telangana Town-Planning Act, 1920 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sayeesh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2005
7. Learned Special Government Pleader further
pointed out that in Sayeesh Kumar V. State of Kerala
(2005 (4) KLT 1027) it is categorically held that the Town
Planning Act does not confer any power on the Government
to tamper with an approved development scheme and that
no power is vested on the Government to grant individual
exemption. Hence it is contended that the denial of permits
on the basis of the zonal classification is absolutely legal
and justified.
Sri.V.Shivaprasad vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2011
I take
note of the fact that the decision in Sivaprasad's case is not
a binding precedent on this court. But I perfectly agree with
the legal ratio enunciated in the said decision.
M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair & Anr vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 20 April, 2005
In this context the learned counsel for the
petitioners had also brought to my attention a Division
Bench decision of this court in Gopalakrishnan V.
State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 317). It is held therein
that, if in an area earmarked as residential zone, large
number of constructions for commercial purposes were
permitted, whether under orders issued by the Government
or not, then the only sensible thing for the Corporation to do
is to take a realistic approach by not rendering the area any
longer as a residential zone and request the Government to
make suitable changes in the master plan to make it in
conformity with the ground reality. It is pointed out that, in
the case at hand the spatial regulation (spatial planning)
envisaged years back through the DTP scheme has became
unworkable, because a lot of constructions has been
W.P (c) Nos.28917/2011, 4175, 4511, 4737,
6401, 6574, 7398 & 8218 OF 2012 -15-
permitted contrary to the spatial regulation. Hence it is
contended that, at any rate the zonal regulations envisaged
under the town planning scheme which has not been
implemented nor approved or notified, cannot be sustained.
Poovanpattil Areekattu Abdu Rahiman vs The Malappuram Municipality on 18 June, 2008
A Division
Bench of this court in Abdu Rehiman V. District
Collector, Malappuram (2009 (4) KLT 485 it is held
that, even when a decision of a Division Bench is stayed by
the Supreme Court, the single Judges of this court are
bound to follow the decision of the Division Bench, as it
continues to be a binding precedent for them.
Raju S. Jethmalani & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 5 May, 2005
In the decision of the hon'ble
Supreme Court in Raju S. Jethmalani V. State of
Maharashtra and others (2005 (11) SCC 222) it is held
that, though land belonging to private persons can be
included in development plans, unless the land is acquired
by the State Government or by the Municipal Corporation to
effectuate the public purposes such development plan
cannot be implemented and the land owner cannot be
deprived of using the property for any other purposes.
When the Government or Municipal Corporation fails to
acquire the land, the private persons cannot be deprived of
the use of the land, is the dictum.