Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)
Chaduranga Kantharaj Urs vs State Of Karnataka on 4 October, 2017 cites

Raju S. Jethmalani & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 5 May, 2005

Learned counsel for petitioner Sri D.R.Ravishankar is also right and justified in placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAJU S. JEETHMALANI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - (2005) 11 SCC 222 to 27 contend that Government cannot deprive a person of the use of his land by him, in order to provide amenities to the public without acquiring the same and paying compensation to him. The planning authority cannot delineate the land belonging to a private person as meant for public use or garden or park without acquiring the same and paying compensation. Indeed, this is the substance of the observations made in the said judgment relied upon by Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel. In the facts of the said case, controversy arose in the context of development plan prepared for Pune Municipal Corporation under the erstwhile provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954. In the master plan published by the Pune Municipal Corporation, certain plots belonging to private individuals were earmarked for the purpose of park and garden. Those plots could not be acquired by the Government of Maharashtra and therefore, they were eventually dereserved by issuing a notification. This was challenged by way of public interest litigation contending that once the land was earmarked for a particular 28 purpose, the same cannot be dereserved to defeat the public purpose. In that context, the Apex Court has laid down that property rights of private individuals cannot be taken away without paying them compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 578 - A K Mathur - Full Document
1