Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Kerala Municipality Act, 1994
Sarada Bai And Others vs Smt. Shakuntala Bai And Another on 16 June, 1992
He also relied on Sarada Bai v. Shakuntala Bai, and Yaseen Khatoon v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, , in support of his contention that a neighbour can question the unauthorized constructions and prevent the same through Court.
Yaseen Khatoon vs Commissioner, Municipal Corporation ... on 25 April, 2005
He also relied on Sarada Bai v. Shakuntala Bai, and Yaseen Khatoon v. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, , in support of his contention that a neighbour can question the unauthorized constructions and prevent the same through Court.
Friends Colony Development Committee vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 1 November, 2004
He also relied on S. Narasimha Reddi v. Corporation of Hyderabad, 1981 An.W.R. 166 and Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, , in support of his contention that unauthorized or illegal constructions cannot be permitted by the municipalities.
M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 March, 2004
6. The main contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners is that since the width of Kanchirajuvari Street is between 17'6" to 19'6" from the site of 4th respondent to Rashtrapathi Road, petitioners and other residents of that street who are residing near that narrow width of road would be put to any amount of inconvenience and nuisance due to traffic congestion etc. It is his contention that inasmuch as 4th respondent did not also comply with the requirements of 1987 and 1999 Acts, it cannot be permitted to proceed with construction of a multi-storied building in that street and so respondents 1 to 3 granting permission to the 4th respondent when they refused permission for construction of such type of a building at a place which is a few yards away from the site of the 4th respondent is highly irregular and improper. He placed strong reliance on M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, , where it is held that Municipality has constitutional responsibility in respect of matters enumerated in Schedule XII of the Constitution, on V.M. Kurian v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 1409, arising under the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1964, where it was held that rules relating to restriction with regard to maximum height of the building contained in the Kerala Buildings Rules, 1964 and the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1964 are mandatory in nature and are required to be complied with and that there cannot be any relaxation of the rules which are mandatory in nature. He also relied on Dr. C. Kulsum Reddy, State of A.P., (D.B.), in support of his contention that unauthorized constructions cannot be regularized.
Andhra Pradesh Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987
Section 13 in The Andhra Pradesh Fire Service Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Andhra Pradesh Fire Service Act, 1999
K. Ramadas Shenoy vs The Chief Officers, Town Municipal ... on 9 August, 1974
He also relied on K. Ramadas Shenoy v. The Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, UDIPI, , where it was held that inasmuch as illegal construction of a cinema hall would materially affect to the residents in a residential area, Municipal Authorities cannot grant permission for construction of a cinema hall in a residential area.