Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (4.82 seconds)
Pallavi (A) Pallavi M Majithia vs The Commissioner on 9 December, 2020 cites

Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Muddappa And Ors on 19 July, 1991

After referring to Bangalore http://www.judis.nic.in 32/42 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020 Medical Trust's case as well as Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare Association's case, cited supra, the Division Bench rejected the contention that even though an offer was made by the Hospital to treat 50% of the patients free, the same cannot be held to be in public interest and rejected the appeal upholding the order of the learned Single Judge. 35 In the light of the above settled position of law, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court had held that the land which is reserved for public purpose, particularly, under Rule 19(a)(iii) for communal and recreational purposes cannot be converted even by the Government, as neither the Government nor the owner, have any title over the same and it actually vests in the purchasers of the residential plot in the locality. Therefore, the second question is answered to the effect that the land which is reserved for communal or recreational purposes in a lay-out under Rule 19(a)(iii) actually belongs to the purchasers of the plots in the residential lay-out as an amenity defined under Section 2(2) of the Act. http://www.judis.nic.in 33/42 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 457 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Dr. G.N. Khajuria & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 31 August, 1995

http://www.judis.nic.in 21/42 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020 30 In Dr. G.N. Khajuria and others v. Delhi Development Authority and others, reported in MANU/SC/0064/1996 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 156 - B L Hansaria - Full Document

Lal Bahadur Shastri S. Jr. High School ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 26 April, 2002

31 In a more recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Bahadur v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2018 SCC 220, while dealing with the power of the Government to reclassify a land which was shown as green belt in the Master Plan into a residential zone set aside such conversion though legislative powers were invoked in the said case after referring to the judgment in Bangalore Medical Trust v. S. Muddappa and others, cited supra. While doing so the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare ... vs Subbathal on 12 April, 2007

After referring to Bangalore http://www.judis.nic.in 32/42 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020 Medical Trust's case as well as Sri Devi Nagar Residences Welfare Association's case, cited supra, the Division Bench rejected the contention that even though an offer was made by the Hospital to treat 50% of the patients free, the same cannot be held to be in public interest and rejected the appeal upholding the order of the learned Single Judge. 35 In the light of the above settled position of law, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court had held that the land which is reserved for public purpose, particularly, under Rule 19(a)(iii) for communal and recreational purposes cannot be converted even by the Government, as neither the Government nor the owner, have any title over the same and it actually vests in the purchasers of the residential plot in the locality. Therefore, the second question is answered to the effect that the land which is reserved for communal or recreational purposes in a lay-out under Rule 19(a)(iii) actually belongs to the purchasers of the plots in the residential lay-out as an amenity defined under Section 2(2) of the Act. http://www.judis.nic.in 33/42 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

R.Chandran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 August, 2010

http://www.judis.nic.in 30/42 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020 33 Another Division Bench of this Court in R. Chandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in MANU/TN/1357/2010 :
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

[Rani Residency Flat Owners Welfare ... vs Chennai Metropolitan Development ... on 13 September, 2019

13. The 1st respondent has taken a stand that the area which has been reserved in the approved plan belongs to the Corporation and it has to be maintained and therefore, steps were taken to secure this portion by fencing it. The learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of Corporation heavily relied upon the http://www.judis.nic.in 13/42 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020 WP Nos.10725, 10607, 10617, 10738, 10621, 11436, 10736 of 2020 WMP.Nos.12895,13043, 13044, 12897, 12900, 12890, 13034, 12903, 13022, 12888, 13949, 14050, 13041, 13038 of 2020 Division bench judgement of this Court in [Sidco nagar Welfare Association Vs. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and others] 2018 5 CTC 857. The relevant portions relied upon by the learned standing counsel are extracted hereunder :-
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - V Kothari - Full Document
1